{subsubsection: Flexible Quota Utilization}
The cost of matching a job against a slot is traditionally the value of the SlotWeight expression. In a scenario where the slot weights of available p-slots are greater than an accounting group's quota, the jobs in that accounting group will be starved.
-However, when a p-slot with a Consumption Policy is matched the match-cost is the _change_ in the SlotWeight value, from before the match to after. This means that a match is _only charged for the portion of the p-slot that it actually used_ (as measured by the SlotWeight expression), and so p-slots with many resources and possibly large SlotWeight values can generally be used by accounting groups with smaller quotas (and likewise by submitters having smaller fairshare values).
+However, when a p-slot with a Consumption Policy is matched then its match-cost is the _change_ in the SlotWeight value, from before the match to after. This means that a match is _only charged for the portion of the p-slot that it actually used_ (as measured by the SlotWeight expression), and so p-slots with many resources and possibly large SlotWeight values can generally be used by accounting groups with smaller quotas (and likewise by submitters having smaller fairshare values).
{section: Consumption Policies and Accounting}
+As was mentioned above, the match cost for a job against a slot with a Consumption Policy is the _change_ in the SlotWeight value from before the match to after. It is this match cost value that is added to the corresponding submitter's usage in the HTCondor accountant. A useful way to think about accounting with Consumption Policies is that the standard role of SlotWeight is replaced with _change_ in SlotWeight.
+Also of note: because matching with Consumption Policies takes place in the negotiator, accounting of Concurrency Limits is also implicitly handled in the standard manner.
{section: Examples}
