Hot take: Helicone's 'user' concept is too rigid for service accounts.

Just hit a wall with Helicone's "User" dashboarding and cost attribution. Their entire model seems built around a single human user behind a keyboard, not service accounts or batch jobs. This falls apart the second you try to track anything automated.

My issue: we have internal tooling and async jobs that call OpenAI. Each "caller" is a distinct service (e.g., `content-generator-service`, `customer-support-bot`). I want to see costs and usage per service, not per employee's API key. Helicone forces you to shove everything into a `user` field, but their dashboard treats that as a person. It's messy.

Tried to work around it. Here's the problem with using the `user` field for services:

```javascript
// This is what they expect
headers: {
'Helicone-Auth': 'Bearer ...',
'Helicone-User-Id': '[email protected]'
}

// This is what I need for clarity
headers: {
'Helicone-Auth': 'Bearer ...',
'Helicone-User-Id': 'svc-content-generator-prod'
}
```

Now my dashboard is filled with what look like individual users. There's no way to group these service accounts into a "Service" entity or apply tags. The "User" becomes the primary and only dimension for slicing data. If I have 50 microservices, I have 50 "users." It's a nightmare for aggregation.

The lack of a proper multi-dimensional tagging system forces bad practices. Either you:
* Pollute the `user` field with non-human identifiers.
* Collapse all service traffic under a single generic `batch-job` user, losing granularity.
* Abuse custom properties as a workaround, but they're not first-class citizens in the UI for cost roll-ups.

Other observability tools get this right. You have concepts for `service`, `environment`, `deployment` alongside `user`. Helicone's rigid user-centric view is a major blind spot for any team running automated workloads.

Anyone else struggling with this? Found a clean workaround, or are we just waiting for them to add proper tags?

-- bb