Making dated client updates usable
Advertising platforms held delivery data. Registration figures arrived separately through client conversations. The reporting work brought these records into a workbook that could be reviewed again, with dated entries and visible exceptions.
James defined the reporting requirements and validation rules. AI-assisted tooling supported extraction, reconciliation and workbook production.
Twelve consecutive weeks, with incomplete periods left blank
This example shows a later, twelve-week reporting window from one anonymised project, selected by recency. It is separate from the historical decisions in the client collaboration cases. Six weeks contain complete, reconciled daily records; the remaining weeks are left unplotted.
Weekly reported registrations
Index · First complete week = 100 · Absolute volumes withheld
Dashed markers represent incomplete or unresolved weeks, not zero registrations. Weeks are numbered to protect commercial timing. On small screens, scroll horizontally to view all twelve weeks.
View chart values and calculation
Weekly index = accepted weekly registrations ÷ accepted registrations in the first complete week × 100, rounded to one decimal. Only weeks with all seven daily records accepted are plotted.
| Period | Registration index |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 2 | 100.0 |
| Week 3 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 4 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 5 | 36.4 |
| Week 6 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 7 | 89.8 |
| Week 8 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 9 | 77.3 |
| Week 10 | Not plotted: incomplete or unresolved records |
| Week 11 | 84.0 |
| Week 12 | 71.1 |
The plotted weeks fluctuate, and the final week sits below the baseline. The chart describes the accepted reporting record; it does not demonstrate sustained registration growth.
What the reporting work delivered
Dated registration updates became a workbook with trend charts and records that could be traced back for checking. Conflicting entries were excluded from accepted totals pending resolution. Missing information stayed separate from zero activity.
This provided a reporting history for further review. It did not establish unique customer counts or allocate registrations to individual ad networks.
For a separate resource on comparing reports, use the tracking reconciliation worksheet to record definitions, evidence and unresolved differences.
Source and measurement notes
The chart uses reconciled, client-reported registration records. Repeated reports are deduplicated by reporting date and project; this does not establish unique customers. Incomplete and unresolved weeks are not plotted. The chart does not allocate registrations to individual ad networks or establish the effect of a specific campaign change. Raw messages, client names, identifiers, exact dates and absolute commercial figures are withheld. The historical workflow is reconstructed from working correspondence, not a controlled experiment.
Talk through your reporting challenge.
Tell us what your campaign reports show and which customer outcomes you still need to understand.
See what to prepare for a focused campaign review before discussing the scope with James.
Discuss your reporting setup ↗