Formal escalation request - Azure billing case 2608240040007685

I am requesting escalation of Azure billing support request 2608240040007685 to a billing duty manager, and payment of the USD 147.49 that remains in dispute.

Background:

• An Azure SQL database was unintentionally recreated by tooling on my own machine, which reset its service tier from Basic to General Purpose. It billed at roughly 85 times the intended rate for 21 days before I found and corrected it myself on 24 August.
• I completed the root cause analysis myself from the Azure Activity Log and provided it in full, including timestamps and caller identity. I have stated plainly to support that Microsoft did not cause the change.
• Support approved a partial one-time credit of USD 138.365, which I have accepted as a partial adjustment without waiving the remainder. The remaining USD 147.49 was declined.

I am asking for that remaining USD 147.49, and I am escalating here because the case has stalled on errors that support has not corrected.

1. Support stated the General Purpose tier was "first time deployed on July 3, 2026." Microsoft's own Cost Analysis export shows the subscription's total spend that day was USD 0.161, and the database in question was not created until 3 August - on a server that did not itself exist until earlier the same day. A database cannot be deployed a month before the server hosting it.

The cause appears to be that support has been looking at the wrong resource. This subscription contains two separate SQL servers and two separate databases, and the subscription's display name matches only one of them - the one NOT in dispute. The USD 0.161 per day running through July belongs to that other database, which has existed since December 2025. Azure's own consumption records map every meter to a specific resource ID, and they show the disputed General Purpose charges belong solely to the newer database created on 3 August. Usage from the older database has been attributed to the newer one more than once in this case.

This has not been addressed or withdrawn across three replies, and the July 3 finding was the stated basis for advising me to purchase a technical support plan.

2. The most recent reply misstated the amount I requested, declining a figure substantially larger than the one I actually asked for.
3. I was advised to purchase an Azure Technical Support plan to pursue what is a billing matter. A paid technical investigation would confirm the cause was my own tooling, which by support's own stated criteria produces no credit - so the precondition set for further review cannot be satisfied.

I have already attempted to escalate this internally. I emailed the assigned engineer's manager directly, at the address given in the engineer's own email signature, setting out the errors above. The reply came back from the same engineer, restating the same position, and did not address any of them. A subsequent request for escalation to a duty manager, submitted on the case itself, has so far gone unanswered.

I am on a Basic support plan, so I cannot raise severity above C and have no phone escalation route available - the published support number directs callers to the website and disconnects. Having exhausted the routes available to me, I am asking for an independent review of this case by someone other than the original analyst, and a decision on the outstanding USD 147.49.