An independent view of your Google Ads.

SAMPLE / SYNTHETIC / NOT A REAL ACCOUNT — illustrative agenda only. Please help us establish what the evidence supports before approving any account change. 1. Trust the orders before trusting the bidding Known: Two primary purchase actions: Purchase · tag and Purchase · analytics. Actual duplicate counting and bidding inclusion are unproven. Why it could matter: If overlapping purchase actions enter bidding, apparent orders and bidding decisions might be distorted. Efficiency metrics need reconciling with real transactions. Question: Are both purchase actions eligible for Smart Bidding, and can you reconcile their events with real orders? Suggested owner: Agency measurement lead + business order-data owner (suggested) Evidence required: Campaign goal eligibility, event deduplication and reconciled orders versus bidding conversions. Next: Ask for the goal configuration and a transaction-level reconciliation of both purchase actions against backend paid orders, refunds and the dated attribution window before any change. Effort: scope-dependent / not yet estimated. Verification: Show independent event diagnostics and reconciled orders after any approved change; compare equivalent periods with conversion lag allowed. Hold: Do not change primary goals or bidding until overlap and campaign inclusion are confirmed and the owner approves a test and rollback. Citations: MEAS-01 · conversion_action.event; MEAS-01 · conversion_action.primary_for_goal 2. Check who paid search is really reaching Known: Synthetic examples: “free template” and “jobs near me”; matching exclusions are absent in this sample. Cost and business irrelevance are unproven. Why it could matter: If these searches fall outside the offer and accrue costs, paid budget might reach people unlikely to become customers. This is not measured waste. Question: How do “free template” and “jobs near me” relate to our offer, what did they cost, and what would justify an exclusion? Suggested owner: Agency paid-search lead + business owner (suggested) Evidence required: The actual offer, dated query intent, cost by search term, campaign scope and existing exclusions. Next: Request a scoped terms-and-cost review. Ask for evidence-led exclusions only after the business confirms irrelevant intent. Effort: scope-dependent / not yet estimated. Verification: After approved exclusions, compare relevant-query coverage and qualified outcomes in comparable periods, allowing conversion lag; monitor unintended blocking. Hold: Do not apply blanket negatives from these examples. Require exact scope, owner approval, a test and rollback before edits. Citations: SEARCH-01 · search_term.examples; SEARCH-01 · negative_keyword.coverage 3. Define a real customer before judging return Known: Offline conversion validation is unassessed. Margin-adjusted profitability is unassessed. Why it could matter: Without verified customer outcomes and margins, platform conversions cannot establish genuine customer acquisition cost or margin. Question: Which verified records define a new customer, and which margin inputs are available to assess profitability? Suggested owner: Business finance/data owner + agency measurement lead (suggested) Evidence required: Offline upload diagnostics and customer acquisition definition. Owner-confirmed margins and customer economics. Next: Supply the missing business inputs securely to the authorised reviewer; this dashboard does not collect them. Effort: scope-dependent / not yet estimated. Verification: Reassess only once the inputs are validated and joined to the relevant period; distinguish platform conversions from actual customers. Hold: No changes recommended. Do not conclude profitability or scale budgets from an unassessed check. Citations: MEAS-03 · synthetic check contract · no evidence supplied; ECON-02 · synthetic check contract · no evidence supplied No financial loss, savings or independently verified resolution is established. Please respond with dated evidence, not an assurance alone.