Agency Reporting Reconciliation
Reconciles what your agency reports against what your case management system actually recorded.
The spec — copy this
Set up a new bot for me that runs monthly, per agency and per channel. Walk me through connecting my case management system, my ad platforms, and wherever my agency reports land, then configure it: for each reporting period, put the agency's numbers next to my own system's numbers side by side — leads reported against leads recorded, by source and by month — and quantify every gap as both a percentage and a dollar figure at my cost per lead. Then do the part that matters: explain the gap rather than just showing it. Test the usual causes in order — different deduplication rules, a different attribution window, a different definition of what counts as a lead, form fills counted against qualified calls, lag between the platform recording a lead and my system receiving it, and leads that arrived but were never entered on my side. State which cause the data supports and which it rules out. Where my own intake failed to record something, say so plainly, because that is the most common answer and the one nobody checks first. Never characterize a discrepancy as inflation, misreporting, or bad faith — report the delta, the likely mechanism, and what would confirm it. Ask me which agencies and channels, where reports are stored, my attribution windows, and my lead definitions, run it on a month I have already argued about so I can compare its explanation to what we concluded, then save it.
Connect first
The spec asks for these as it goes — however you normally connect them works. Nothing needs to be set up in advance, and a system named here is usually an example rather than a requirement. If yours has an API or an export, the spec generally adapts.
- Characterize a discrepancy as inflation, misreporting, or bad faith — it reports the delta and the likely mechanism
- Report a gap without testing whether your own intake failed to record the lead
- Contact an agency, withhold payment, or terminate anything
These specs are written to establish facts, not to build a case. Every one reports observed gaps and the mechanism behind them, and none concludes that a vendor or agency acted in bad faith — because the most common answer is a definitional mismatch or a gap in your own intake, and the second most common is something a contract already addresses. Before you put a finding in writing to a counterparty, read your agreement and have counsel look at it.
Reporting gaps are usually definitional, not dishonest. Establish the mechanism before you take a number to an agency, and have counsel review anything you put in writing that alleges a breach.
- Category
- Agency & Vendor Oversight
- Contributed by
- Jacob Malherbe Mass Tort Ad Agency↗
- Approval gate
- A named human approves before anything sends, files, or publishes.
- Last verified
- 2026-08-19
More in Agency & Vendor Oversight
-
PB-001
AEO Vendor Effectiveness Check◆
Tests whether your AI visibility vendor is actually moving citations, or whether the market moved without them.WSWeb SearchGSGoogle Sheets
-
PB-004
Agency Contract Terms Map◆
Pulls the notice periods, renewal dates, ownership clauses, and exit terms out of every marketing agreement you have signed.GDGoogle DriveDDropboxBBox
-
PB-015
GBP Management Audit◆
Tells you whether whoever manages your Google Business Profile is actually doing anything measurable.GBGoogle Business ProfileGSGoogle Sheets
-
PB-018
Lead Provenance & Duplicate Audit◆
Finds the same claimant sold to you twice, and the leads whose consent documentation would not survive a look.LDLead DocketFFilevineGSGoogle Sheets