The previous discussion about this behavior has already been closed, so I am opening a new topic because I think there is an additional issue that has not been fully addressed.
This is not primarily a bug report.
I understand that the current behavior is intentional.
My concern is that the term “Full Reset” does not accurately describe what the user is actually receiving.
What happened to me
My Codex weekly allowance was scheduled to reset on:
Sunday, September 6 at 11:30 PM
I exhausted my allowance on:
Saturday, September 5
So there were only about 37 hours remaining until my normal weekly reset.
I had a banked Full Reset, and I redeemed it because I had a lot of work to complete.
My reasonable interpretation was:
Current allowance: 0% → Full Reset → 100%
while my already scheduled Sunday reset would remain unchanged.
Instead, after redeeming it:
Current allowance: 0% → 100%
but
Next reset: Sunday, September 6 → approximately seven days after redemption
So the previous reset date disappeared.
That is not economically equivalent to a reset
What actually happened was effectively:
I advanced by approximately 37 hours the weekly allowance that I was already going to receive on Sunday.
That is much closer to:
“Advance your next weekly allowance”
or
“Start your next weekly usage period now.”
It is materially different from what most users will understand by the word reset.
The distinction becomes particularly important near the end of a weekly cycle.
If somebody redeems a Full Reset with six days remaining until their normal reset, they receive nearly six days of accelerated access.
If somebody redeems exactly the same Full Reset with only 37 hours remaining, as I did, they receive only approximately 37 hours of acceleration.
Yet the UI presents both transactions as the same Full Reset.
The previous discussion addressed disclosure
There was already a community discussion about the fact that redeeming a banked reset moves the weekly reset date.
OpenAI confirmed that this behavior is intentional and agreed that the consequence should be clearer before confirmation.
I think there is a second issue:
the terminology itself is misleading.
Even with better disclosure, calling this operation a Full Reset suggests that something additional is being reset.
In practice, the product is bringing the user’s next normal weekly entitlement forward and re-anchoring the seven-day cycle.
Suggested UX
Before redemption, the confirmation screen should show something like:
Current scheduled reset:
September 6, 11:30 PM
If you redeem this now:
Usage returns to 100% immediately.
Your existing September 6 reset will no longer occur.
Your new weekly reset will be:
approximately September 12, [time]
And ideally the feature should be renamed to something such as:
Start next weekly allowance now
or
Advance weekly renewal
rather than Full Reset.
This would allow users to understand the actual value of the decision before redeeming it.
Had I been shown explicitly that I was exchanging my banked reset essentially for only ~37 hours of earlier access, I would almost certainly have waited until Sunday.
The system may be working as designed.
My point is that the current name and confirmation flow do not accurately communicate the transaction being made by the user.