Lead Provenance & Duplicate Audit
Finds the same claimant sold to you twice, and the leads whose consent documentation would not survive a look.
The spec — copy this
Set up a new bot for me I can trigger quarterly, or after any large purchase. Walk me through connecting my lead system and my case management system, then configure it: across every lead purchased in the window, identify claimants appearing more than once — the same person delivered twice by one vendor, or the same person delivered by two different vendors — matching on name, phone, email, address, and date of incident, with fuzzy matching and a stated confidence level on every match so I can review the uncertain ones myself. Separately inventory provenance and consent: which leads arrived with a documented consent record, what that record actually says, whether the originating site and the disclosure language are identified, whether a timestamp and IP or call recording exists, and which leads arrived with no provenance at all. Flag phone numbers that are invalid, disconnected, or show as reassigned. It makes no determination about whether any record satisfies TCPA or any state statute, and draws no conclusion about any vendor's practices — it reports what documentation exists and what is missing, by vendor, as counts and rates. Ask me which vendors and windows to cover, my matching thresholds, where consent records are stored, and who reviews the uncertain matches, run it on one past purchase batch so I can check its matches by hand, 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.
- Determine whether a consent record satisfies TCPA or any state statute
- Conclude that a vendor knowingly sold a duplicate
- Contact any claimant, or merge, delete, or alter any lead record
- Treat a fuzzy match as confirmed — every uncertain match goes to a human
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.
Whether a consent record satisfies TCPA or your state's requirements is a legal determination and belongs with counsel. This inventories what documentation exists and what is missing. Duplicate claimants also raise conflicts and prior-representation questions that need an attorney, not a spreadsheet.
- 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-005
Agency Reporting Reconciliation◆
Reconciles what your agency reports against what your case management system actually recorded.FFilevineLDLead DocketMAMeta Ads Manager+2
-
PB-015
GBP Management Audit◆
Tells you whether whoever manages your Google Business Profile is actually doing anything measurable.GBGoogle Business ProfileGSGoogle Sheets