Seed the review with research
Ask your agent to save a reviewed study as workspace-only Knowledge and attach it as an input to the campaign workstream. Include the sources and their dates, the account and market covered, the observation window, a short ranked set of hypotheses, and what remains unknown. A notebook on your computer is not automatically available to the recurring agent. Deep exploratory analysis can remain outside the recurring review. Save the findings it should use and the questions that need further investigation. Research estimates suggest tests; they do not establish conversion improvements or authorize a campaign change.Review a bounded slice of current evidence
The Lead Engine method reviews acquisition opportunities weekly by default, or when material new evidence arrives. The workstream’s research input can set another cadence. Daily health checks continue on their existing schedules. The review considers the actual search queries and keywords buying traffic, their spend and captured enquiries, offer fit, demand that current coverage may miss, and the steps from a page visit through form completion. Named competitors are candidate acquisition audiences, not automatically irrelevant traffic. Counts use completed dates in the ad account’s time zone. Repeated rolling windows overlap and cannot be added as separate weeks. Provider conversions, captured enquiries, qualification and reachability remain separate outcomes; missing or delayed evidence stays unknown. Preserve an approved, successful customer exception when reviewing or repairing a live development. Contact-first is the default for new development work, not permission to overwrite an existing form contract. Audit the actual first save and final save, the desktop and mobile ad destinations (including paused states), the pipeline schema and transform, and the consent fields before proposing a change. Treat pipeline requiredness, rendered requiredness and fields present in the first save as separate observations. A permissive capture schema supports partial contacts; it does not establish which fields the visitor must answer. For a top-of-funnel diagnosis, compare actual daily budget, spend, CPC, clicks, serving status and any returned impression-share loss fields. Empty provider fields remain unknown; budget constraint and low demand are different findings. When page evidence is available, pair pageview → CTA/modal →form_start →
capture → canonical enquiry, using the same geo, device, page,
attribution scope and timezone. Modal opens and modal submits are distinct
events. Verify what each event means: the landing kit emits form_start on
first field focus. A capture probe checks the capture path; it does not measure
whether visitors want the offer.
For a lead-form diagnosis, use the same-page, same-date/session funnel
pageview → modal_open → form_start (first field focus) → first successful
capture. Keep failed submissions separate from low opener/start rates, and keep
commercial qualification separate from capture. Do not treat every form start as
a submit, compare rental and luxury benchmarks as causal evidence, or call
unknown search-term coverage waste. Before a price increase, distinguish low
demand within the current targeting (few impressions despite high impression share
and little share lost to budget or rank) from rank or quality loss; poor Quality Score is diagnostic, not an auction input. Read the
relevant ad copy, search terms, offer fit and competitor intent, preserving
competitor traffic as a distinct hypothesis rather than discarding it. Missing
evidence remains unknown, and the existing quality rules and thresholds remain
the controlling method.
The same review separates contact saved from qualified or reachable. Do not pause a
converting generic-keyword destination solely because Quality Score is low or the
label is generic: quantify spend, captures, downstream qualification, reachability
and lost volume, then use a reversible scoped experiment when evidence is thin.
Audit all public destinations, including mobile and paused states, but do not launch
paused campaigns or change budgets during the audit. On the contact step, the kit’s
omitted required flag defaults to true. When stepIndex > 0, an omitted or explicitly
false required flag is optional, while an explicit required: true remains required. Read
the rendered configuration rather than inferring requiredness from a shared component
or tolerant schema.
Follow the work through
The agent first checks existing assignments, experiments and pending decisions. A finding already owned by one of them advances there rather than becoming a second recommendation. New findings can lead to:- A bounded assignment to investigate evidence or prepare a private candidate.
- An experiment with a hypothesis, exact treatment, metrics, review window and conditions for stopping or continuing.
- An approval card describing a concrete live change and its evidence.
- One choice or escalation when a decision genuinely needs a person.
Read results honestly
Page-bound experiments have automatic measurement setup. Other treatments, such as a keyword expansion, need explicit configuration of the existing deterministic measurement recipe and a check that observations reach the experiment ledger. Page traffic-allocation policy does not apply to those tests. A change that was already applied without a declared control remains an observational study when recorded later. Its before-and-after results can inform a decision, but do not prove that the change caused the difference. If enquiry attribution cannot identify a keyword, the review reports that gap rather than assigning the enquiry by guesswork. A material update produces a workstream digest explaining what is being done, why, the next owned step and what evidence would change the decision. A review can recommend improving or expanding acquisition as well as reducing waste; it does not need to make a change on every pass. Unchanged checks and waiting on an existing decision stay quiet; explicitly requested scheduled briefs retain their requested cadence. Any scaling proposal states the budget change, duration, maximum incremental spend, including provider overdelivery and limit enforcement, review point, stop conditions and existing approval authority. It does not rely on a universal conversion-count threshold. Interventions and confounding factors stay with the existing observational window and owner.Reuse a reviewed method
The built-in Research — Apply reviewed findings to growth skill (research-to-growth) connects a reviewed research input to the existing
review. Lead Engine setup, campaign planning, recurring reviews and Growth
Engineer use the same method. It does not create another scheduler.
The agent chooses the method that fits the question:
- Comparable developments: research sourced property facts, then run the attached Research — Property comparable screening calculation. Distance, asking-price overlap and sale stage help shortlist competitor keyword candidates. Local assumptions must be explicit; incomplete comparisons stay unknown. Similarity is a research heuristic, not predicted conversions or a bid.
- Locality and country/language demand: corroborate relevant search demand, keyword coverage and offer fit, then verify that the page and follow-up support the proposed audience. A new development can use this recipe without borrowing another development’s conversion rates.
- Existing keywords and funnel steps: calculate counts, rates and costs from the owner’s scoped evidence, retaining unknown attribution and unanswered qualification. Investigate the step that limits progress; expansion, content, capture, qualification and reachability can all be subjects of owned work.