{
  "synthetic": true,
  "execution": "Teaching record only; no live integration tested",
  "slug": "acquisition-scope-report-contract",
  "group": "operations",
  "title": [
    "Agree the acquisition scope before judging a channel",
    "评价渠道前，先约定获客口径"
  ],
  "intro": [
    "A business can see different sources in user-acquisition and traffic-acquisition reports without either report being broken. Commission a report contract that states whether the question concerns first arrival, a session or a key event. A channel label is not proof of a qualified enquiry.",
    "用户获取与流量获取报告显示不同来源，不一定有一份坏了。企业应先约定问题针对首次进入、某次会话还是关键事件。渠道标签不能直接证明有效询盘。"
  ],
  "facts": [
    [
      "Google Analytics distinguishes user-, session- and event-scoped traffic-source dimensions. Reports using different scopes answer different questions.",
      "Google Analytics区分用户、会话及事件范围的流量来源维度，不同范围回答不同问题。",
      "https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/11080067"
    ]
  ],
  "columns": [
    [
      "Synthetic observation",
      "Question / scope",
      "Report interpretation"
    ],
    [
      "合成观察",
      "问题与范围",
      "报告解释"
    ]
  ],
  "example": [
    [
      [
        "BrowserB first arrives via organic",
        "How was this browser first acquired?",
        "First-user source:organic"
      ],
      [
        "浏览器B首次从自然搜索进入",
        "最初从哪里获取这个浏览器？",
        "首次用户来源：自然搜索"
      ]
    ],
    [
      [
        "B returns via tagged newsletter in a new session",
        "What originated this session?",
        "Session source:newsletter"
      ],
      [
        "B新会话从带标记邮件返回",
        "这次会话由什么引发？",
        "会话来源：邮件"
      ]
    ],
    [
      [
        "B fires a request_info event",
        "Was there an actual qualified enquiry?",
        "Unknown until authorised business evidence"
      ],
      [
        "B触发request_info事件",
        "是否真实有效询盘？",
        "须有获准业务证据才知道"
      ]
    ],
    [
      [
        "Different browserC on same device owner",
        "Can we mergeB andC as one person?",
        "No identity evidence; do not infer"
      ],
      [
        "同一设备使用者的另一浏览器C",
        "能否把B和C合为一个人？",
        "没有身份依据，不能推断"
      ]
    ]
  ],
  "steps": [
    [
      "Write the business question above the chart, including dimension scope, metric, date window, filters and reporting identity. Keep the same settings when comparing periods.",
      "图表上写清业务问题、维度范围、指标、期间、过滤及报告身份，比较期间时保持一致。"
    ],
    [
      "Use the first two filled rows to test whether the supplier understands why source labels can differ. Record attribution settings separately rather than force every report to match.",
      "用前两行测试供应商是否理解来源为何不同，另记归因设置，不能强行让所有报告一致。"
    ],
    [
      "If authorised enquiry evidence exists, reconcile it through a privacy-approved method. Keep test events, event counts, browser identifiers, enquiries and sales as separate quantities.",
      "若有获准询盘证据，按隐私批准方法对账；测试事件、事件数、浏览器标识、询盘及成交分别计量。"
    ]
  ],
  "result": [
    "The first source can remain organic while a later session is newsletter-led. That difference does not prove tracking damage or incremental revenue. This worksheet intentionally leaves enquiry qualification unknown: naming an event “lead” does not supply the missing business evidence.",
    "首次来源可保持自然搜索，后来会话则由邮件引发。这不证明追踪损坏或新增营收。本表刻意保留询盘资格未知，把事件命名为lead不会补上业务证据。"
  ],
  "accept": [
    "The supplier should reproduce the distinction with synthetic data and state exactly which scope each published figure uses. Comparisons with unknown identity or mismatched filters must be labelled.",
    "供应商应能用合成数据复现区别，说明每个数字的范围；身份未知或过滤不一致的比较须标出。"
  ],
  "limit": [
    "No GA4 account, CRM or personal data was read. Example source labels simplify the stated two-session path; real attribution, direct traffic and consent rules need their actual settings.",
    "没有读取GA4账户、CRM或个人资料。来源标签只简化本例两次会话路径，真实归因、直接流量及同意规则须按实际设置核对。"
  ]
}