Mamboo Games: define migration acceptance before celebrating a growth change

Mamboo Games' case describes gaining useful creative-level data after a measurement migration. The practical task is to prove that the new data can support a decision, not simply that it appears in a dashboard.

What the public case establishes

Adjust reports Mamboo Games seeking more granular creative metrics, broader partner access and better support from its measurement provider. The case describes migration to Adjust, use of Datascape alongside internal BI, and later improvements including month-on-month install growth for Worm Out. Adjust case study.

This debrief analyses a public customer case published by a commercial supplier. It is not an original UA Ledger interview. The chronology below follows the supplier’s account; we did not inspect the advertiser’s dashboards or interview its staff.

The decision worth examining

A migration can change the definition and visibility of a result at the same time that the business changes spending. More recorded installs after the transition need not mean the integration caused more players. The acceptance criteria should first prove event delivery, identifiers, cost coverage and reconciliation, leaving business-growth attribution as a separate question.

Choose representative campaigns before migration: one established source, one smaller partner and one creative-heavy test. Record how each is named and aggregated in the old workflow. The new system should reproduce agreed definitions or explain intentional differences. A clean total with missing creative IDs is not enough if the original reason to migrate was creative-level buying decisions.

A usable next check

Use a bounded dual-reporting or replay period where permitted, and compare the same cohort under documented rules. Classify differences as timing, definition, missing data or unresolved discrepancy. Obtain acceptance from the buyer and analyst who will use the result. Only after that gate should a performance narrative cite the new reporting as decision evidence.

Download the populated case worksheet. Its control, variant and decision rules are a proposed experiment, not an account of results already measured. Keep the source URL with the worksheet when circulating it so reported findings cannot become unattributed team benchmarks.

Evidence boundary

The public case does not release a counterfactual for the reported install growth. This debrief does not compare current vendor capabilities or claim that any one migration process guarantees accuracy.

For background, see reading an mmp dashboard without fooling yourself and cohort quality checklist ua spend. These are existing archive discussions, not independent certification of this case. No first-hand campaign result is asserted.