Rebuilding Attribution After iOS 14.5

A rebuild may help when a documented event, identity or reporting gap prevents a useful decision. I first check the actual app or web path and compare business records with platform reports. Some cases need configuration or reporting clarification; others justify personally implemented infrastructure.

No. Server transport and hashing do not replace ATT permission when app tracking rules apply. I assess the collection purpose, actual architecture and eligible data before implementing server events. Browser restrictions and app permission are separate questions, and some attribution will remain unavailable.

Modelled conversions are estimates whose methods and coverage must be understood. I compare source definitions, windows and eligible cohorts with billing or CRM records and document unmatched cases. Different totals are not automatically errors, and agreement alone does not prove incremental impact.

Timing follows the actual architecture, permissions, access and engineering dependencies. We agree implementation checkpoints after diagnosis and a separate observation window suited to conversion lag and the decision. Delivery can be verified while commercial effects remain inconclusive.

I preserve the available historical exports and document any change in event definitions, collection coverage and attribution windows. Before-and-after comparisons use compatible cohorts where possible and disclose breaks. Existing history cannot automatically supply paths that were never observed.

Sometimes a configuration correction is enough; another case may require an event or infrastructure build. I inspect the evidence before recommending the smallest useful repair.

Meta Conversions API accepts eligible event data through server integrations. Google enhanced conversions supplements supported conversion measurement with hashed first-party data, through the relevant web-tag or offline setup. They are distinct products, and neither removes permission requirements.

Platforms can claim the same conversion under different attribution rules and windows. I check eligible event delivery and deduplication, then reconcile definitions against the store or CRM. A unified report documents these differences; it does not force independent platform claims to become one exact total.

Yes. I build server-side tracking and the Conversions API on both, which covers most ecommerce stores, as well as SaaS apps.

Diagnostic, infrastructure and embedded Operator pricing depend on the engagement. Scope, time commitment, delivery milestones and contract terms are agreed before work starts.

We agree build milestones after reviewing the architecture, access and dependencies. Reporting needs a separate observation window, and platform-attributed totals may continue to differ legitimately from revenue records.

Both options exist. On an advisor engagement I spec it for your engineers. On an infra or operator engagement I build it myself.

A checked measurement setup can improve the inputs used for paid decisions. I document coverage and uncertainty rather than promising complete signals or automatic platform learning. See Meta ads and Google Ads.

It can suit a paid-acquisition business with a material measurement question and usable event or business records. The appropriate scope may be a diagnostic, configuration repair or infrastructure build. We assess permissions, cost and dependencies before choosing a rebuild.

We discuss the symptom, available records and likely investigation. A short call cannot measure the exact reporting gap without access and compatible data. I can then propose a scoped personal diagnostic or build; written enquiries receive a reply within one day.

Yes, you can stop early. Engagements are month-to-month with no minimum term, and either side can end the engagement with 30 days notice. Ending a fractional engagement involves no severance. Scope, time commitment, delivery milestones and contract terms are agreed before work starts.