That procurement team depth problem hits hard. We saw the same thing with a sales engagement platform integration last year. The legal team added a clause requiring disaster recovery documentation, but when the vendor sent back a 15-page PDF full of vague "best-effort" language, our procurement lead just... approved it. They had no framework to parse if that PDF was sufficient or total fluff.
So now we build the software failover AND create a simple procurement checklist for non-technical buyers. It's got questions like "Does your disaster recovery plan include a detailed timeline for service restoration?" and "Can you share a redacted example of your last recovery test report?" It forces the vendor into a yes/no or provide/don't-provide corner, which is much easier for legal to back.
But you're right, the pressure for speed wins. We've started framing it as a cost issue: "If this accelerator vanishes, the cost of scrambling to rebuild the pipeline is X. The cost of building the failover now is Y." Making it a concrete budget trade-off gets more traction than an abstract risk discussion.
If it's not measurable, it's not marketing.
Benchmarking prompt engineering overhead is still mostly qualitative, but you can formalize it. We track it as a non-functional requirement during the pilot phase.
The trick is to isolate the variable. You run the same set of core prompts through the old and new provider's endpoints, but you also log the engineer time spent on prompt iteration to hit the same quality benchmark. That delta gets expressed as hours per 100 prompts, which becomes a tangible, billable cost factor.
Your 30-day pilot is smart, but make sure it includes a defined prompt library iteration phase. If you don't, you're only measuring raw API latency, not the total development cycle impact you're rightfully worried about.
Where is your SOC 2?