Review — Csupi click and call-tracking closeout
Plan: /Users/agency/Documents/Agty/csupi/action-plans/2026-08-10-csupi-client-call-tracking-next-steps.md
How to review this
- Every task starts collapsed. Click its title bar, or focus it and press
J/K, to open it. - Pick one option per task, then hit Submit decisions. Keys:
1delegate,2drop,3idea,4ask first,0clear,J/Kmove. - Delegate to a sub-agent means build it in the next orchestration.
- Delegate, but ask me first means show the exact approach and wait for your approval.
- Save as idea parks it in Notion. Drop rejects it while preserving the reasoning.
- Comments are advisory unless they start with
!, which makes them binding. - Live campaign, production, spending, and client-send tasks still require the exact authority written in the plan.
T-001 — Build the client-ready Budapest click visualization
Undecided
Create a polished Hungarian HTML presentation of the verified district ranking and the separate hour-of-day ranking.
The completed analysis is accurate but not yet packaged as a client-friendly visual story.
Raw tables can be misunderstood as proof of fraud or may fail to show the value of the analysis.
Matt gets a clear presentation that separates geography, time, invalid clicks, and intent evidence.
A responsive Hungarian page passes factual and client-safety review and remains staged for Matt. 80/20. One page shows the top districts, top hours, limits, and next decisions.
flowchart LR
A[Verified analysis exists] --> B[Build client visual story] --> C[Matt can explain findings safely]
flowchart TD
S1[Ground in report and validators] --> S2[Design separate district and hour views]
S2 --> S3[Build responsive Hungarian HTML]
S3 --> S4[Validate facts and wording]
S4 --> D{Review evidence passes}
D -- yes --> DONE[Review ready]
D -- no --> S2
T-002 — Verify Google Ads exclusion capabilities and limits
Undecided
Use current official sources and read-only account checks to verify which district and schedule exclusions are actually possible.
The click-report dimensions may not map directly to Google Ads targeting controls.
A live plan could depend on a control the platform does not support or whose location meaning differs.
Matt gets a dated support matrix before approving any campaign change.
Official documentation and read-only account evidence classify each requested control. 80/20. Answer District XI, 10:00 to 10:59, and combined-control feasibility.
flowchart LR
A[Requested exclusions] --> B[Verify platform controls] --> C[Feasible control matrix]
flowchart TD
S1[Identify campaign types] --> S2[Read current official docs]
S2 --> S3[Inspect account read only]
S3 --> S4[Classify requested controls]
S4 --> D{Evidence is current and exact}
D -- yes --> DONE[Feasibility documented]
D -- no --> S2
T-003 — Design the exact reversible exclusion pilot
Undecided
Convert the two requested exclusion axes into one exact approval packet with campaign scope, duration, metrics, and rollback.
The desired axes are known, but the operational safety fields are not.
The live task stays blocked or becomes too broad to interpret and reverse safely.
Matt can approve one narrow, auditable plan rather than an ambiguous mutation.
The packet contains exact campaigns, controls, sequence, duration, sample floor, success metric, and rollback. 80/20. Fully specify the smallest recommended pilot and queue the other axis second.
flowchart LR
A[Intent without exact scope] --> B[Build approval packet] --> C[Safe reversible pilot]
flowchart TD
S1[Validate feasible controls] --> S2[Identify exact campaigns]
S2 --> S3[Compare sequential and simultaneous tests]
S3 --> S4[Define metrics and rollback]
S4 --> D{Every approval field exists}
D -- yes --> DONE[Ready for Matt decision]
D -- no --> S2
- Which campaigns, duration, sample floor, success metric, and rollback trigger should Matt approve?
T-004 — Apply the approved exclusion pilot
UndecidedNeeds input
Apply only an exact, separately approved exclusion pilot and preserve provider and rollback receipts.
The requested exclusion becomes a real platform experiment instead of a planning note.
Possible waste continues, while acting too early could suppress genuine demand.
A narrow approved change can be verified and reversed.
Not expanded — campaign scope, duration, success metric, rollback trigger, and live authority are still unknown.
- Approve the exact packet from T-003 before any live Google Ads write.
T-005 — Finish the Google forwarding-number blocker investigation
Undecided
Give one strong Codex owner agent the unfinished GFN investigation and let it coordinate bounded technical sub-agents.
Prior route results do not yet give Matt one current, executable verdict.
Call attribution stays unproven and the investigation risks circling the same blocked paths.
One reconciled owner, verdict, and next action replaces fragmented attempts.
Every prior route is reconciled and the result is either a verified repair path or an exact external gate. 80/20. Identify the blocker that kept the reviewed fix out of production.
flowchart LR
A[Fragmented route audit] --> B[One Codex owner reconciles evidence] --> C[Executable repair or exact gate]
flowchart TD
S1[Recover audits and run state] --> S2[Reconcile unresolved routes]
S2 --> S3[Trace Google and Cloudflare path]
S3 --> S4[Independent technical checks]
S4 --> D{Current verdict has evidence}
D -- yes --> DONE[Repair path or human gate]
D -- no --> S2
- Which exact external owner or authority controls any remaining production deployment step?
T-006 — Evaluate third-party call-tracking alternatives
Undecided
Compare current low-cost call-tracking providers for Hungarian numbers and Google Ads attribution without signing up or purchasing.
The project needs a credible fallback if Google's forwarding path cannot be repaired quickly.
More time may be lost on the same route or on a provider that lacks Hungarian support.
Matt gets an evidence-backed shortlist, recommendation, and spend gate.
A dated comparison verifies Hungarian number support, integration, privacy, setup, and total cost. 80/20. Find one qualifying provider and one fallback.
flowchart LR
A[Google path uncertain] --> B[Compare qualified providers] --> C[Approval ready fallback]
flowchart TD
S1[Define must have criteria] --> S2[Research official provider sources]
S2 --> S3[Verify numbers integration privacy and cost]
S3 --> S4[Rank options and gaps]
S4 --> D{At least one provider qualifies}
D -- yes --> DONE[Recommend provider and fallback]
D -- no --> S2
- Any purchase above the current human-gate threshold needs Matt's separate provider and spend approval.
T-007 — Implement and terminally prove the chosen call-tracking path
UndecidedNeeds input
Implement the chosen tracking route and prove one real paid-call conversion end to end.
Configuration alone does not prove that paid calls are attributed correctly.
Optimization and outcome reporting remain untrustworthy.
One terminal proof chain creates a reliable measurement foundation.
Not expanded — provider choice, spend, production authority, qualifying-call rule, and consent decisions are still unknown.
- Choose the route and approve spend, production scope, qualification, and consent before implementation.
T-008 — Finalize the client presentation after the technical work
Undecided
Combine the verified exclusion and call-tracking outcomes into one final Hungarian presentation and talk track.
The client needs one coherent status story after the parallel workstreams.
Matt may present stale status or overstate what tracking and exclusions have proven.
One polished presentation explains completed work, gates, risks, and next actions.
The final HTML and talk track reconcile every claim to evidence, pass QA, and remain unsent pending approval. 80/20. Refresh the presentation with final status and a five-minute talk track.
flowchart LR
A[Parallel technical outcomes] --> B[Synthesize truthful client story] --> C[Review ready final presentation]
flowchart TD
S1[Collect receipts and gates] --> S2[Update Hungarian presentation]
S2 --> S3[Separate complete configured blocked and unproven]
S3 --> S4[Validate and run responsive QA]
S4 --> D{Every claim has dated evidence}
D -- yes --> DONE[Matt review ready]
D -- no --> S2
- After Matt reviews the final version, which client delivery channel is authorized?
T-009 — Set the qualified phone-enquiry definition and value
UndecidedNeeds input
Agree what counts as a qualified phone enquiry and what business value it carries.
ROAS has no reliable meaning without a qualification rule and value.
The account may optimize toward raw calls rather than commercially useful enquiries.
Matt and the client get a shared basis for value reporting.
Not expanded — the qualification rule and commercial value require a business decision.
- What minimum duration, disqualifiers, evidence source, and value should define a qualified call?