diff --git a/tests/provider-quota.test.ts b/tests/provider-quota.test.ts
index ad3a6edbdd4..4b79062f450 100644
--- a/tests/provider-quota.test.ts
+++ b/tests/provider-quota.test.ts
@@ -1858,6 +1858,12 @@ describe("fetchProviderQuotaReports", () => {
     expect(JSON.stringify(openai?.aggregation)).not.toMatch(/(?:total|consumed|remaining)Weight|projectedUsedPercent/i);
   });
 
+  // #3198 changed what "tolerate" means here: an uncalibrated plan — a name the weight map
+  // does not list, or a malformed non-string value like the `{ tier: "pro" }` below (both
+  // normalize to undefined via codexPlanKey) — is now counted at the baseline seat weight
+  // instead of being excluded from the aggregate. Exclusion silently overstated coverage;
+  // baseline counting is the visibly conservative estimate. The account still shows up in
+  // `unknownPlanAccounts` so the operator can see the estimate is conservative for that seat.
   test("pool reports tolerate a malformed persisted plan through cache and aggregation", async () => {
     saveCodexAccountCredential("added", {
       accessToken: "added-access",
@@ -1886,12 +1892,14 @@ describe("fetchProviderQuotaReports", () => {
 
     const refreshed = await fetchProviderQuotaReports(config, true);
     const openai = refreshed.reports.find(row => row.provider === "openai");
-    expect(openai?.quota.weeklyPercent).toBe(11);
+    // Both seats weigh the same (malformed -> baseline, "plus" -> calibrated baseline), so the
+    // blend of 77 and 11 lands at 44 — not the 11 the old exclusion contract produced.
+    expect(openai?.quota.weeklyPercent).toBe(44);
     expect(openai?.aggregation).toMatchObject({
-      includedAccounts: 1,
-      excludedAccounts: 1,
+      includedAccounts: 2,
+      excludedAccounts: 0,
       unknownPlanAccounts: 1,
-      incomplete: true,
+      incomplete: false,
       currentAccount: { quota: { weeklyPercent: 77 } },
     });
     expect(openai?.aggregation?.currentAccount).not.toHaveProperty("plan");