One act does two jobs, and neither was designed around the other.
The same choice that clears a machine to run under a named way of working is the choice that starts the count. Tacit Source writes it once; Even Steven and the fleet owner both read the same record.
Chosen by name, counted from the choice.
No default and no last-used. A machine that carries yesterday's choice forward on its own has moved on nobody's authority. Choosing is an act, and the count exists because that act was made, not because a clock ran.
What starts it
A person on the crew choosing, by name, whose way of working runs, and putting their own name beside the choice.
What it produces
An hours-in-use record that is at once the fleet owner's charge and the hand's pay basis — the same record, read two ways.
A count proves custody. It does not, on its own, prove truth.
Even Steven's own research is direct about this: every counting mechanism examined secures an already-recorded fact, and does nothing about whether the party observing the use had reason to tell the truth. A self-hosted record proves consistency, not independence.
The covenant's promise — that the party counting the hours is the party who owes the money, so the hand gets to check it — is not literally true once Tacit Source counts and Even Steven owes. The fix, not yet drafted: the hand's own count line, exposed to them directly from the system that wrote it, and audit rights that run the whole chain rather than stopping at either company's own books.
What you are charged for, and on what record.
You license a way of working, by name, for a job, on your own machine. You are charged for the hours it is in use, on the same record that shows who on your crew chose it and cleared the work — the same record the hand can check.
Metering a machine against this?
Ask for the count interface particulars.