The same unmarked table, published twice
Two entries reached the same arrangement without coordinating: house models and licensed models on one table, in the same type, with nothing marking which is which. A reader has to already know which maker each name belongs to, and the two halves fail on different companies' decisions. From 2 source pages, read 2026-09-22; no maker pays to be listed.
| On this point | Runway | Luma |
|---|---|---|
| What the table lists | Credit conversions per model | Plan coverage per model |
| Is the licensed half marked | No marking on any row | Only in the plan wording |
| Own generations listed | Two house lines, video and editing | Two house generations |
| Who ends a licensed row | That model's maker | That model's maker |
| Is the news route described | Nothing published | Nothing published |
Inclusion rule. Both cells on a row come from the entry's own priced pages. Product announcements naming models that never reach a priced page are not counted. Order. What the table lists first, then how the mixture is presented.
1An arrangement reached twice is a habit, not a policy
Two companies of different sizes, selling in different units, ended up presenting the same mixture the same way. That suggests it follows from how pricing pages get written rather than from a decision anybody defended.
Habits are worth recording because they change without announcements. Nothing prevents either page from marking its licensed rows tomorrow, and nothing obliges it.
2Two halves, two different endings
A house line goes when the company selling it decides. A licensed line goes when somebody else does, and arrives here as an edit rather than as news. Presenting them identically hides which kind of ending a reader is exposed to.
One of the two pages at least acknowledges the mixture in its plan wording, which is a sentence rather than a marking. The register records it as an acknowledgement.
3What a marked table would change
Nothing about the risk, and everything about whether a reader can see it. Marking licensed rows would let a production know which names to watch at the maker rather than at the reseller.
That is the habit both entries make harder, and it is the one the aggregation question recommends regardless.
4The same question, put to a third entry
| On this point | SceneMixer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| When a tier is withdrawn | When a tier is withdrawn, text and image work falls back to the default tier and video to the tier the episode last used if it is still listed, otherwise the default; the price shown is the tier that will run | SceneMixer, withdrawn tier guide |
Inclusion rule. SceneMixer's own statements that bear on the column this pair was chosen for. Order. The statement closest to the column first.
All of its readings are on the SceneMixer entry.
- How the plan describes the menu it sellsPlans are described as covering Luma models alongside models from other makers
5Sources
Both readings come from the pages the entries publish themselves: Runway and Luma, read 2026-09-22. The column being compared is Named replacement. Other pairs: Firefly and Kling AI, The Gemini API and Sora.