How a software true-up charge works

A software true-up lines an agreed inventory up with the terms of the agreement that applies. That agreement is what decides what can be charged.

Microsoft describes one Enterprise Agreement process in public guidance. The published documents use different order windows, so read the agreement that applies to your account.

What Microsoft publishes

Microsoft Enterprise Agreement guidance, retrieved 27 October 2026, describes the True-up as an annual inventory of products, services, users and devices added during the year. It says the annual True-up order must be received between 60 and 30 days before the agreement anniversary.

The same guidance describes an Annual Order for an Enterprise Subscription Enrollment, which can increase or decrease license subscription counts. These are Microsoft agreement terms. They are not a universal rule for other software agreements.

The Microsoft true-up at a glance PDF, identified by search metadata dated 15 April 2025, describes an annual inventory at pre-agreed terms and pricing, so added quantities do not each need their own order. The extract available for this article does not state an order window. The search-metadata date is not a claim that the PDF was opened on that date.

Windows that disagree

The older Microsoft True-up guide, identified by search metadata dated 5 December 2018, says an annual True-up order must be submitted between 60 days before and 15 days after the Enterprise Agreement enrollment anniversary. That is a different window from the HTML guidance. The search-metadata date is not a claim that the PDF was opened on that date.

Do not merge the two stated windows, and do not assign either window to the at-a-glance extract. Use the agreement in front of you. Ask the vendor or the account contact which provision applies to the term you are looking at.

A list price is not a true-up

A public per-seat list price states an offer. It is not a true-up. A usage meter records or describes usage. It is not itself a true-up either. An agreement has to define the quantities, the pricing, the period and the reconciliation that apply.

The usage-based pricing guide explains metered units. The seat and user guide helps you name the unit being counted. Neither public definition replaces the counting rule in the agreement.

A checked public record under the VerifiedPricing methodology is a human-reviewed fact with a source, a scope, a region and an observation date. It is point-in-time evidence. It is not an account reconciliation.

Keep the order, the inventory export and the charge on separate rows. For each, write the text or the figure, the date, and the source. Then name the seat definition, the quantity and the reconciliation period. A shared number is only the start. The unit and the conditions decide what the number describes. Leave a field blank, or mark it unknown, when the source does not establish it.

Connect each conclusion to its row. Check the agreement, the unit price and the relevant dates before you move a value. A source can answer one part and leave another open. A document can name a rate and still say nothing about eligibility, or about how a different document treats that rate. Keep the wording beside the value.

If the order, the export and the charge use different units, do not subtract them yet. In the invented example, 40 ordered seats and 47 active seats differ by seven only as a count of those two numbers. Active seats may not be the agreement's unit, and they may not be the agreement's period.

Before you treat those seven seats as billable, ask which agreement and anniversary apply, which order window that agreement uses, and, for the calculation, the unit price and the dates. A public list price and a usage meter are still separate events.

A fictional seat count

A made-up software vendor has an order for 40 seats. A later admin export shows 47 active seats, and a charge is presented for 7 seats. These quantities and the vendor are invented and are not Microsoft pricing.

The difference between 47 and 40 is seven, but arithmetic alone does not establish that seven seats are billable. You still need the contract's counting rule, the unit price and the date range. Active seats in an export may not be the same unit, or the same period, as the agreement describes.

Keep the export date and the export's definition next to the order and the charge. If the rule that applies is missing, label the billed quantity unresolved. Do not treat the visible difference as proof.

The order row contains 40 seats for the fictional vendor. It identifies a quantity in the order. The example does not give the product scope, the seat definition, the effective dates or a unit price. It therefore cannot, by itself, establish the quantity every later export should be compared with. Keep the order and any agreement it references so the baseline can be checked against the term that applies.

The export row contains 47 active seats at a later observation. That is an inventory reading with its own date and its own definition. The example does not establish whether active means assigned, used, licensed or billable under the agreement. A single export also does not establish when each seat was added, or whether any seat was removed during the relevant period. Those questions need the counting rule and dated records that fit it.

The charge row presents seven seats. Seven is also the arithmetic difference between 47 and 40. The coincidence does not establish the calculation used on the charge. The example supplies no unit price, no charge period, no tax treatment and no calculation detail. A reviewer should request those fields and compare the billed unit with the unit in the order and the export. Do not substitute a public rate for a missing account rate.

The date row matters on its own, apart from quantity. The order term, the export timestamp and the billed period might describe different intervals. A later snapshot can show an inventory at that point. It cannot alone establish how many seats were present throughout a reconciliation period. Record the agreement anniversary separately from the date an export was produced and the date an order was submitted or received.

For a worked review, write the numerical difference as a tentative observation and attach the source for each number. Then add a row for the contractual rule: which products and users count, how additions are measured, and how the period is defined. If the agreement is unavailable, the row remains unknown. The conclusion is that the seven-seat charge is unresolved, not that it is necessarily right or wrong.

A written explanation can close some of those gaps if it names the account, the agreement and the period, and if it gives the calculation. Compare it with the order, the inventory and the invoice. Do not treat any one document as a stand-in for the others. If the explanation uses a different count, keep both counts and ask how they relate. That produces a traceable account review without stretching the Microsoft examples onto the fictional vendor.

Questions to ask

Ask which agreement and enrollment govern the charge, which anniversary applies, and which order window is relevant. Request the calculation, the counted products or users, the unit price and the dates included.

Ask how additions, and any reductions, are treated under that specific agreement. Separate an inventory record from the order that follows it and from the invoice. A page that describes one vendor's process cannot settle another vendor's contract.

If the documents disagree, or a provision is missing, keep both sources and the unresolved field. A dated written explanation tied to the account can make the comparison more precise.

Questions

Is a public seat price a true-up charge?

No. A public list price is an offer. A true-up charge depends on the agreement that applies and on the reconciliation.

Which Microsoft order window should I use?

Read the agreement and the guidance that apply to the account. The sources described here state different windows, and the 2025 extract states none.

Does 47 active seats against 40 ordered prove seven billable seats?

No. The contract counting rule, the unit price and the date range are needed to establish the billable quantity.