Pull delivery and conversion data from every platform, reconcile it against the warehouse, draft the commentary and flag what looks wrong — an analyst signs the report and owns every causal claim in it.
Pull spend, delivery and conversion data from each platform, measurement source and the warehouse.
02
Record the attribution setting, lookback window, currency and time zone each figure arrived under.
Reason
03
Reconcile platform figures against the warehouse and size every difference rather than averaging it away.
04
Deduplicate conversions more than one platform has claimed, by the rule agreed with the client.
05
Draft commentary on what moved, against which comparison — as movement, not as cause.
Decide
06
Hold any period still inside its restatement window, or where a definition or window has changed.
07
Flag anomalies for a person and route the whole report to the analyst who signs it.
Out
08
Deliver to the deck, dashboard or client portal, with every figure traced back to its pull.
09
Retain each source pull, reconciliation difference, restatement and edit made to the commentary.
→Product statement
The agent assembles, reconciles and drafts. It does not decide what caused a change, and no report reaches a client without a named analyst signing it.
Example workflow
One report, end to end
AgentHuman
1Reporting period closesThe week, month or flight the client contracted for reaches its end date
2Sources pulledEach platform API, measurement source and warehouse table, stamped with pull time, currency and time zone
3Figures reconciledPlatform figures set against the warehouse, overlapping conversions deduplicated, every difference sized
4Commentary draftedWhat moved and against which comparison, with the attribution setting and window stated beside it
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the pull, the reconciliation and the first draft of the commentary are finished before anyone is asked to read anything.
5DecisionSplits on reconciliation coverage and restatement risk
Reconciled and settled
Reaches the analyst ready to sign.
Unreconciled or still restating
Held with the gap named, not sent.
Analyst and account lead
The analyst checks the figures against the warehouse and rewrites any line that asserts a cause; the account lead signs what goes to the client.
Approve · Rewrite the line · Send back
Approved — handed back▼
6Report deliveredInto the deck, dashboard or client portal, only after the named analyst has signed it
7Outcome evaluatedFigure agreement, restatement stability, commentary lines rewritten in review, and anomaly precision by client
Commentary edits
Every line the analyst rewrites is counted, and causal claims are counted separately.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Stating that a campaign caused a business result.
Signing or sending a client-facing report.
Changing an attribution model, window or comparison.
Restating a figure the client has already seen.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Pull each source on schedule and stamp what it arrived as.
✓Reconcile platform figures against the warehouse and size every difference.
✓Deduplicate conversions more than one platform claims, by the agreed rule.
✓Draft commentary describing movement, and flag anomalies for a person.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Sending a report and asserting a cause are not among them.
Choosing the metric a bonus is judged on.
Reporting a partial period as if it were final.
Closing an anomaly or ruling it not material.
Changing a metric definition in the reporting layer.
Example output
One reporting week, annotated
Everything the agent states is attached to the pull it came from.
Reporting output · single client weekIllustrative example
Client and period
Sources
Pull stamp
Reconciliation
Confidence
Commentary
Retail brand, one week
Four platforms, warehouse, CRM
Read today
Conversions do not agree
92%
Drafted, not signed
As receivedEach source exactly as it returned the data, with the window, currency and time zone it arrived under.
Evidence usedWarehouse order tablePlatform pull, stampedDeduplication rule
Why it is heldTwo platforms claim the same orders, and the period is still inside restatement.
ActionApproveRewrite the lineSend back
What the score decidesIt decides how much the analyst re-reads before signing, not whether the media worked.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every source, every periodFrom platform APIs and the warehouse
03Reconciliation
Reconcile against one agreed source
Set every platform figure against the warehouse under the client's own definitions, and size each difference instead of averaging it away.
01Approved path
Reduce the build time on every report
The pull, the joins, the deduplication and the first draft are done before an analyst opens the file, so the hour goes on reading rather than building.
02Human review
Surface the disagreement before the client does
Figures that do not reconcile, periods still restating and definitions that have moved are raised now, instead of in the meeting where the client asks.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain every source pull, the setting and window each figure arrived under, each reconciliation difference, each restatement and every edit to the commentary — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Ad platformsGoogle Ads · Meta · DV360 The Trade Desk · Amazon Ads · retail media
A report can reconcile in aggregate while a few clients, channels and periods carry nearly all of the differences, the restatements and the commentary lines a reviewer has to rewrite. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Periods still inside restatement
5.9%
3.1×
Review
Multi-platform deduplicated conversions
4.9%
2.6×
Review
Cross-currency, multi-market clients
3.2%
1.7×
Watch
Single-platform steady-state accounts
1.1%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: failure-rate lift vs. steady-state baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The figure you signed last week has since moved
Conversions land days after the click and modelled figures settle later. A cycle that never re-reads a reported period closes the wrong thing.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Figure agreement, restatement or reviewer edits move on one client or channel.
02Diagnose
Traced to the pull, a join, a deduplication rule, a definition or the commentary.
03Improve
The rule, mapping or wording is changed, re-approved by the analytics lead and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-run against closed periods, including the ones the client queried.
05Learn
The query becomes a regression case and the definition enters the reporting glossary.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Each cycle re-opens periods already sent, so a restatement is caught by the agent rather than by the client.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, source connections, reconciliation, commentary and evaluation, delivery, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Reporting discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Platform, measurement and warehouse APIs.
03Metric definitions and attribution settings.
04Scheduled pulls, currency and time-zone rules.
05Reconciliation logic and difference reporting.
06Conversion deduplication across platforms.
07Restatement handling and period-close rules.
08Commentary drafting and causal-language controls.
09Anomaly detection and reviewer routing.
10Evaluation suite, slices and regression cases.
11Delivery into decks, dashboards and portals.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne client, one reportProductionProduction data pipelineAdvancedMulti-client / multi-market
Introduced at Pilot
Scheduled platform pulls✓✓✓
Warehouse reconciliation✓✓✓
Drafted commentary✓✓✓
Named-analyst sign-off✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Conversion deduplication rules—✓✓
Restatement and period-close handling—✓✓
Anomaly detection and routing—✓✓
Delivery to decks and dashboards—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-market currency and time zones——✓
Client portals and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on the platforms and measurement sources in scope, reconciliation depth, reporting cadence, delivery surfaces, review controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01The reports you send today, and who signs them→Reporting discovery and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Your metric definitions, attribution settings and comparisons→Definition, attribution and comparison-period mappingWeek 1
03Access to platform, measurement and warehouse APIs→Scheduled pulls with currency and time-zone normalisationWeek 2
04The table or view you treat as the source of truth→Reconciliation logic and difference reportingWeek 2
05How you want overlapping conversions counted→Deduplication rules and restatement handlingWeek 3
06Reports a client queried, and the numbers you had to correct→Evaluation suite, slice reporting and regression casesWeek 4
07Named analysts and the surfaces clients actually read→Reviewer routing and delivery into decks, dashboards and portalsWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the evaluation slices and the first reports delivered under signature.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Reports in scope, metric definitions and who signsW2Source pulls, normalisation and the reconciliation baselineW3Deduplication, restatement handling and commentary draftingW4Causal-language controls, anomaly routing and evaluation suiteW5Delivery surfaces, first signed reports and targeted correctionsW6Production validation, restatement re-runs and Agent Care handover
Reading the bandThe causal-language control and the reviewer routing are built in week 4, before a report reaches a client in week 5. The bars show that dependency, not a smooth ramp.
At the end of W6Reports have gone out under a named analyst's signature and a closed period has been re-read for restatement, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Advertising AI agent
Build a performance-reporting agent around your measurement stack.
Show us the reports you send, the sources behind them and the last few numbers you had to correct in front of a client. We'll reconcile one client's reporting week end to end against your warehouse and show you where the figures disagree, before anything is scoped.
