CASE STUDY / VERIFIED

Flat for the best part of a week. The platform said everything was fine.

We repaired the attribution signal and ran agents over the creative and the budget. Under two sales a day became over nine across the paid run, on lower spend, a 6.3x return verified on Meta's own API and reconciled to the bank. Meta delivery ran nine days, 12 to 20 May 2026.

Book a call

WHAT YOU CAN CHECK

The claims on this page, and how they were checked

6.3x

Return on the paid run, checked against Meta's own API and reconciled to money that landed in the bank. Treat it as a floor: attribution was only repaired in the last day or two of the run.

Meta's own API, reconciled to the bank · 12 to 20 May 2026
9+

Sales a day across the paid run, up from under 2 before it, on lower spend. The closing four days peaked past fourteen, which is a peak and not the run rate.

Pledge record, reconciled to the bank · 12 to 20 May 2026
9 days

Meta delivery ran nine days. The longer twelve-day figure you may see elsewhere is the reconciled window running to the campaign close, which is a different thing.

Meta delivery · 12 to 20 May 2026
94 of 96

Pledges in the paid window settled, none refunded.

Pledge record, reconciled window · 12 to 23 May 2026

What is live, what is roadmap and what we have not built is set out in the facts table.

See the full facts table →

SALES A DAY

Under two a day before the run. Over nine across it.

The paid run lifted the daily rate and held it, on lower spend. The last four days ran hotter again, and that peak is drawn apart from the run rate so nobody reads one as the other.

0UNDER 2 A DAYOVER 9 A DAY, THE PAID RUNOVER 14, LAST FOUR DAYSBEFORE THE RUN12 MAY20 MAY
Sales a day from the pledge record, reconciled to the bank · before the run, the paid run 12 to 20 May 2026, and the closing four days 19 to 22 May · axis from zero

The stall.

The campaign had been flat for the best part of a week, money going out and very little coming back. And the platform's own reporting said everything was fine. That gap between what Meta claimed and what the bank account said is the whole disease we treat.

The look.

We brought the accounts into the warehouse and did what a dashboard can't: reconciled the platform's numbers against real sales. The attribution was broken at the timing level. Conversions were landing but reporting late and mis-stamped, so the algorithm was flying blind, and the reporting layer was papering over it.

The fix.

We repaired the server-side signal so the platform could finally see what was actually converting. Then we ran agents recursively over the creative and the budget, reviewing the work and moving the money day after day, at a pace no weekly meeting can match.

The scoreboard.

Two a day became over nine a day across the paid run, on lower spend, and the closing four days peaked past fourteen. A 6.3x return, and here's the bit that matters: that figure is verified against Meta's own API and checked against money in the bank, not taken from the platform's scorecard. A scorecard reports what the platform can see. We report what happened, and when the two disagree we can show you exactly where and why.

THE KICKER

“Nobody needed a cleverer ad. Once the machine could see what was selling, the decisions were obvious.”

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

The villain in this story is in your clients' accounts too. Somewhere, a platform's scorecard and the bank disagree, and the disagreement is costing money nobody can see. The warehouse that found it here is the one Kist puts under your clients' reporting. We ran it on our own business first, and we still run it there every day. Nothing gets shipped to a client that we haven't run on ourselves.

Every read is scoped to one client before it runs. A query that reaches outside that client is refused, not quietly trimmed.

Ask us how the governance works →

Your clients' version of this story starts with one look at their data.

Book a call