How I'd reconcile platform numbers with cash

1. 1. Pick the source of truth

   Sales come from the ledger or order system, net of refunds and cancellations, on one time zone and one currency. Spend is what was actually billed, not what a dashboard estimated.

2. 2. Explain the gap

   Platform totals almost always exceed booked sales. List the reasons: click and view attribution windows, modeled conversions, the same order claimed by several platforms, returns, tax and shipping, and timing differences. Quantify each so the gap is understood, not just observed.

3. 3. De-duplicate paid, affiliate, and creator claims

   Join claims to orders by order ID or discount code, then use one written rule for overlapping claims. Affiliate commissions and creator payouts should follow the same rule, or the business pays twice for one order.

4. 4. Report cash MER first

   The executive number is cash MER: booked net sales over total spend, compared to break-even set by contribution margin. Platform ROAS stays on the page as a channel signal and trend, never as the budget.

5. 5. Fail closed

   When a feed is late or incomplete, the dashboard shows a gap instead of a guess. A missing number gets asked about. A wrong one gets acted on.

6. 6. Use experiments for the hard cases

   Reconciliation shows how much is being over-claimed. It can't say which channel caused the sale. When that matters for budget, run a geo test or an RCT.

This is how I'd approach the problem in general. It describes a method, not results from any employer or client.

Try it: Attribution comparisonTry it: Executive MER dashboardThe shift from MTA to macro-measurementHow I'd approach an MMMHow I'd design a geo test