Murka: an attribution-window change is also a measurement change

Murka's public case describes tailoring view-through and reattribution settings. The operational lesson is to keep those settings visible whenever performance is compared across time.

What the public case establishes

Adjust reports Murka seeking custom attribution and inactivity windows, raw data and event detail. The case describes campaign-specific re-engagement settings, including different lapse periods, and later expansion of DSP traffic. These are the supplier's account of a measurement and buying workflow. 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 longer lookback or different inactivity threshold can change which outcomes receive credit without changing how many outcomes occurred. That does not make the setting wrong; it makes the definition consequential. A review comparing ROAS before and after the setting change must distinguish a change in credited activity from an independently demonstrated change in business value.

Record the campaign's eligibility rule alongside its attribution rule. Eligibility determines who may be targeted, while attribution determines how later activity is credited. Mixing them in one vague retargeting label makes it hard to know whether an apparent improvement comes from reaching different people or counting their return differently.

A usable next check

Using authorised internal data, produce a sensitivity table under two declared lookback settings while holding the underlying event set constant. Separately evaluate a campaign with a controlled eligible population if the team wants an incremental-return answer. The first exercise measures reporting sensitivity; it is not a substitute for the second and cannot establish that credited returns were caused by ads.

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 source's DSP growth claim is not a controlled incrementality result. No private settings or raw events were inspected, and the article does not recommend a universal inactivity or lookback period.

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.