Not every revenue problem starts in the campaigns. And until you know the exact point where it is lost, any correction is a bet somebody is going to pay for.
One-time purchase · no subscription · no account to maintain
That something is what ends up on a slide. If the system recognises 180 of the 500 records that came in, computing quality on 500 mixes two problems and produces a false conclusion that sounds reasonable.
An approximate number here is worse than none, because you are going to show it upstairs and defend it.
Three junctions: tracking, quality and learning. They are transitions, not stages: the first two are subtracted, the third is checked. And before subtracting it decides whether your numbers are comparable —source, window, definition and cohort—; if something does not line up, it does not calculate: it says what needs aligning.
Three junctions, four declarations per count and five named false positives.
Between what the platform says came in and what the system recognised. It is subtracted, and it is the one to close first.
Between what was recognised and what became workable. Subtracted — but only after closing the previous one, or the denominator lies.
Between what closed and what returns to the system. Not subtracted: checked.
Source, window, definition and cohort per count. If something does not line up it does not calculate: it says what needs aligning.
Misaligned window, different definition, long sales cycle, contaminated denominator and decorative return. So next time you recognise them yourself.
Neutral, with your name on it. With both readings: the one you would have given and the one that holds, using your own numbers.
Comparability before subtraction. If two figures are not comparable, the instrument does not produce an approximate number that looks exact: it stops and says what needs aligning.
The order is not negotiable, and for an arithmetic reason, not a methodological one.
Platform, CRM and close — with their provenance. Writing them forces you to declare where they come from.
Source, window, definition and cohort per pair. Without that, the subtraction produces a number that means nothing.
With the first junction open, computing the second mixes two problems. The instrument will not let you skip it.
With the provable gap, the order of correction and where the diagnosis ends.
Nine blocks, neutral, with your name on it. And the most valuable part is not the leak it finds: it is the list of what looked like a leak and was not.
Quality is not interpreted with tracking still open — and the report shows both readings with your own numbers: 11 out of 500 says you lose 97.8 % in quality; 11 out of 180 says 93.9 %. The difference is 320 records the system never recognised, and those are not bad leads: they are leads that are not there.
Every line is a boundary verified in the build, not a list written for tone.
No currency figures. The earlier title that promised it was withdrawn for contradicting the product's own limits section.
It works with your counts, not with the average of an industry that is not your operation.
It locates the junction. Fixing it is work, not an output from a form.
You write the counts, and writing them forces you to declare where they come from.
If the tracking gap is the principal one, the next step is no longer this instrument.
When the principal gap sits in tracking, the fix requires auditing the measurement: how far the signal can be believed before deciding anything on top of it.
See Analytics Audit Tool →If you do not yet know whether the problem is signal, economics, integration or governance, the layered diagnosis comes first and tells you which of the four to look at.
See Customer Acquisition Diagnostic →The six diagnosis and decision tools in one purchase. It is an offer of breadth, not of discovery: it makes sense once you already know you will need more than one.
3,094 MXN See the bundle →Thirteen years building acquisition systems for operations that do not forgive: BAIT and Farmacias YZA (Walmart, FEMSA), Movistar, Mercedes-Benz. Over 5M MXN a month under management.
I don't optimise campaigns. I govern systems. And I don't publish courses here — I publish the instruments I work with. Same judgement I apply on a paid engagement; the difference is that here you run it.
Instant download. Unzip it, open it with a double click, and it runs offline.
Base price. Hotmart's checkout will show 578.84 MXN with tax included.
No, and that is the product's most important boundary. It produces no currency figure. It locates the junction where leads are lost with numbers you can prove; turning that into money requires assumptions that would be yours, not the instrument's.
From your ad platform, your CRM and your record of closes. The instrument connects to nothing: you write them, and writing them means declaring source, window, definition and cohort — which is exactly what makes the subtraction mean something.
It does not calculate. It tells you what needs aligning. That is the difference between an instrument and a calculator: any calculator would have given you a number.
No. It is a tool you run yourself in the browser. You answer what you know about your operation and you leave with a document you can put in front of whoever signs.
A ZIP file. Unzip it and open it with a double click. It runs on your machine, with no account, no sign-up and no connection: nothing you type leaves it.
No. One-time purchase, no renewal and no account to maintain. The price shown is the base price; the checkout will show the amount with tax.