Bad traffic shows up in the steps after registration

Bad traffic leaves a pattern after the reg: no payment attempt, a minimum deposit followed by no play, a suspicious burst of activity or duplicate accounts. Those patterns warrant a traffic review when the brand’s own records show that the product path works and the defect stays with the tested geo and creator type. A clean-looking reg total cannot explain them away.

Make the two reports describe the same test

Start with the geo, creator type and registration period under review. The agency’s attributed regs need a matching group in the brand’s report. Comparing them with every new account in the dashboard gives you a disagreement before you have even looked at traffic quality.

The timezone and cutoff must match too. Deposit and activity records need to cover the agreed window for those registrations. Use the cohort method for time comparisons and the deposit report rules for the counts. These are checks to settle once, so every traffic review does not turn into another argument about definitions.

The brand needs to follow the same accounts from reg to payment attempt, completed deposit and later activity. The agency needs the tracking references and the matching geo and creator-type totals. Neither side can settle a disputed count by pointing to a bigger number in its own dashboard.

The last completed step tells you where to investigate: did players stop before the cashier, fail inside it, or complete a payment that vanished from the report?

Regs without payment attempts expose weak intent

A source that repeatedly brings regs but little interest in the cashier is a poor fit for a deposit test. Count how many registered players attempted a payment. A failed attempt shows a different problem from an account that never reached that step.

If few players attempt a payment across repeated comparable groups, while other traffic uses the same journey successfully, the source has an intent problem. That is enough to challenge its place in the test. The agency should explain the geo and creator-type fit and propose what would change.

If attempts fail for the same reason across traffic, the cashier needs repair. A missing payment method or a blocked product step belongs with the brand. The readiness checks help locate that loss. Calling it bad traffic leaves the blocker in place for the next source.

Minimum deposits without play are a quality problem

A repeated cluster of minimum deposits followed by no play is a strong warning about player intent. It deserves a traffic review even if the FTD count looks fine. The brand wanted players who use the product. It received a group that stopped as soon as the minimum payment completed.

First check that play is being recorded and that the game path works. Compare players from the tested group with other players using that path over the same window. If activity appears normally elsewhere and the minimum-deposit group repeatedly does nothing afterwards, the defect stays with that source group.

These invented percentages are no universal warning line. The problem is the repeated behaviour after the brand has checked its activity feed and product path. If game events are missing across traffic, repair that feed before making the comparison.

The successful FTDs stay in the deposit report. Their weak later activity stays in the quality assessment. A large FTD count does not cancel the reason to change creator type or stop.

A timing burst needs to survive the clock check

Regs arriving together can be normal. What deserves action is a repeated burst of real account activity with the same weak next step: accounts appear in a tight period, then make no payment attempts, or complete minimum deposits and stop. The pattern is stronger than the spike alone.

Use the time the player acted. An export arriving late or an event queue releasing its backlog can put unrelated actions into the same minute on a chart. If the burst disappears when plotted by event time, the problem is delivery timing. The tracking checks cover that mismatch.

If the burst remains, compare its payment and activity trail with the ordinary flow in the same geo. Once the brand has ruled out a product interruption, repeated accounts that stop at the same step are a reason to challenge the source. Ask the agency about that group while the records are still easy to find.

A burst of attempts sharing a cashier failure points elsewhere. The payment team should identify the affected route and period. The report then shows the traffic pattern separately from the blocker, so neither can hide behind the other.

Separate repeated callbacks from duplicate accounts

A repeated event is a reporting defect. Duplicate accounts are a traffic-quality concern. Start by matching the transaction records: a replay of the same completed payment should disappear when the event feed is checked against the cashier. Then look at the brand’s account checks for the remaining group.

When the brand confirms duplicate accounts repeatedly entering through the same tested group, the source needs action. Check whether the pattern returns in the next group; do not keep counting it as new volume while waiting for the test to end. Use the brand’s confirmed account overlap for that verdict. A shared device alone leaves it open.

Replayed callbacks belong to whoever owns event delivery. Confirmed duplicate-account traffic belongs in the source review. A better event feed will remove the first problem and leave the second visible.

Ask at the first report or the first anomaly

Before launch, agree which part of the report the brand can request: geo, creator type, registration period, deposit window, timezone and cutoff. Agree how the agency’s tracking references connect to the brand’s records. This saves time when a weak pattern appears and somebody asks for an explanation.

The first report is the first check. If counts disagree, request the matching records then. If a duplicate-account pattern or minimum deposits without play appear between reports, ask immediately. Waiting for the final test total gives the same problem more room to grow.

We don’t wait for the final report when the same weak pattern keeps coming back. The request should say what happened, which group it affects and which comparison would separate a source defect from a product blocker. “Please check the traffic” gives the agency too little to work with.

Repeat the check after a repair, then again in the next comparable group. A correction to yesterday’s report shows that yesterday was corrected. The next group shows whether the mechanism that produced the problem has changed.

Ask for a matching export, then resolve the gap

The agency response should contain the disputed geo and creator-type figures, the tracking references behind them, the dates and the counting rules used. The brand brings the matching registration, cashier and activity records. Request the fields that explain the gap.

Compare completed payments missing from the attributed report, repeated events, wrongly counted FTDs and confirmed duplicate accounts separately. Each discrepancy needs a clear reason and a corrected total. A blanket “the figures have been updated” says nothing about the cause.

Passing the same screenshot between teams is not a reconciliation method.

A screenshot can show that something is wrong. Matching records show where it went wrong. The agency can explain the tracking references and its report; the brand can explain payment status and account checks. The team handling event delivery can explain a missing or repeated callback.

The client-side workflow starts with access to deposit statistics or a regular export. Use that access to locate where the players stopped, then see whether the corrected group still shows the source defect.

Act on the defect you found

Weak payment intent, repeated minimum deposits without play and confirmed duplicate-account traffic can justify changing geo or creator type, or stopping the test. A real timing burst strengthens that case when it carries the same weak behaviour. The agency needs to answer those findings directly.

A cashier or attribution blocker needs an operational pause and a repair check. State which route or records failed, who will check the repair and what allows the test to resume. Calling a product failure a source failure simply sends the next test into the same broken path.

A source review should finish with the weak behaviour the checks confirmed and an answer from the agency about what changes. A reporting correction alone changes the count, not the weak behaviour. If the records are still disputed, say how that limits the conclusion. The brand can stop a test it can’t assess while leaving the cause open.

Then repeat the check in the next comparable group. Does the same weak behaviour come back? Until that is checked, a cleaner total is only a cleaner total.