The reported change
Approximately 24.2% lower: (2.27 − 1.72) ÷ 2.27. Currency and comparison windows are not yet confirmed.
James has confirmed that the conversion event was a deposit. Earlier website copy described it as a sign-up; that event label was incorrect.
Deposit CPA does not establish FTD or eFTD. The figures are not confirmed as cost per first-time depositor or per unique depositor. The treatment of repeat deposits, event counts and deduplication needs checking.
Evidence and open questions
| Item | Current status |
|---|---|
| Reported event and values | Deposit CPA; 2.27 → 1.72. Confirmed by James. |
| Dates, currency and sample | Awaiting original-record reconciliation. |
| Spend and denominator | Deposit-event count and duplicate handling need confirmation. |
| Attribution | Window, reporting timezone and delayed-event treatment need confirmation. |
| Cause of the change | No isolated causal effect established. |
My role and the evidence
My hands-on work includes buying third-party traffic and optimizing links, creative and landing pages, supported by RedTrack S2S tracking. The exact sequence of changes behind this historical comparison still needs to be matched to the records.
I am not presenting the decrease as proof of a particular placement change, bid adjustment or budget strategy.
What I would verify before scaling
- Use the same deposit-event definition and reporting window on both sides of the comparison.
- Reconcile cost and event totals, including delayed or repeated events.
- Check whether placement mix, creative or landing-page changes explain a shift in quality or volume.
- Keep scaling on hold if tracking is unresolved or the agreed loss limit is reached.
A lower CPA alone does not establish profit, higher deposit value or an improvement at a larger budget.
Keep separate results separate
This is distinct from the earlier report comparison with CPA 2.30 → 2.05 and conversions 393 → 348.