Skip to content
← The intelligence layer

Every number on the screen opens into the rows behind it.

A figure here is not a rendered value. It carries the service that computed it, the window it covers, the attribution rule in force, and the record set it was built from. Decisions freeze the evidence they used, so a restatement weeks later cannot quietly rewrite the basis of a past action. Where two systems disagree, both readings are kept.

In practice

Demo data

Where does the €184 Google CAC come from?

From MET-cac-14d: €17,200 of Google spend over 14 days as reported by the channel adapter, divided by the 93 customers recorded in that window. The evidence is the adapter's spend rows, customer records from your finance system, and the last-non-direct rule that assigned each of those 93 to Google. Business impact: this is the figure ACT-2291 rests on, and it is also what puts blended CAC at €144.69 against your €140 target. Confidence is high — 93 customers over 14 days, well above your 30-conversion threshold — with one caveat on the screen: two of the 93 are pending invoice, and the figure moves to €187 if they are refunded. The alternative reading concerns the level rather than the calculation: four of those days ran a new landing page, so this is not a clean read of the campaign at steady state. No action is recommended here; the figure feeds the queue where actions are drafted. Constitution check: none applies — evidence is read-only, and nothing on this page can change an ad account.

Figures carry an identifier

The €184 Google CAC is MET-cac-14d: a metrics service computation over a stated window, reconciled against customer records in your finance system. Open it and you get the spend rows, the customer rows and the join between them.

Decisions freeze their snapshot

DEC-8841 stores google_cac 184.02, meta_cac 121.37 and target_cac 140 as they stood at 06:14 that morning, alongside the evidence identifiers behind each. Later restatements show up as a difference against that snapshot rather than as a silent edit to history.

Disagreement between systems is preserved

Platform ROAS 5.1, attributed 3.8 and margin 2.7 stay three columns for one campaign. Collapsing them into a single score would hide the only interesting fact about them, which is that the ranking reverses depending on who is counting.

Demo data

Behind one answer

Answer
Meta. Its customers are credited with €14,800 more collected 90-day revenue than Google's on 15% less spend.
Evidence
311 customers, 90-day window, invoiced value from the finance system, last-non-direct attribution.
Business impact
Moving €1,200/day would add an estimated 31 customers this month.
Confidence
High — 14 days above the minimum evidence threshold.
Alternative explanation
Meta's audience skews to annual plans. Some of the gap is plan mix rather than channel quality.
Recommended action
Move €1,200/day from Google Prospecting to Meta Prospecting.
Constitution check
Passes — within the €1,500/day movement limit.

One goal. Every channel. Real business truth.

Connect your ad accounts, say what a good customer is worth, and let the Growth Brain work the objective inside limits you set.

No ad spend commitment · Connect one channel to start · [email protected]