Illustrative specimen only

Specimen Evidence Review

See what a Real Buyer Growth Evidence Review looks like

This is an illustrative specimen of a promotion-integrity evidence review. It shows the four outputs you receive: what was reported vs what held up, where budget leaked, why confidence dropped, and what to tighten next. No live client data is shown. The standard evidence review covers pre-checkout behaviour on the merchant's owned, instrumented campaign surfaces.

See the specimen artifact

No credit card required. No credit card required. We reply within 24 hours..

Get my growth evidence review

This page shows a specimen artifact based on the Real Buyer Growth Evidence Review's intended output format. The numbers are illustrative — not drawn from a named client. The goal is to show what the evidence review actually produces, so you can judge whether it answers a useful question for your business.

Four outputs. One evidence review.

Each section below shows specimen data for one output of the Real Buyer Growth Evidence Review. In a real engagement, these numbers come from your campaign.

Output 1

Reported vs Verified

Reported

1,842

Verified

1,311

Gap

531

Verification rate

71.2%

Verified Gap

71.2%

28.8%

Your dashboard may show new customers, redemptions, or reward claims. The evidence review shows how many still hold up when checked against device signals, contact consistency, timing patterns, and linked-participation logic. The gap between reported and verified is where budget waste hides.

Output 2

Waste Exposure

First-order leakage184

Repeated code use127

Refund-after-offer96

Suspicious redemption124

Estimated at-risk spend £4,980

Where discount codes, rewards, or incentives went to participation that did not cleanly meet the campaign claim — broken down by type: first-order leakage, repeated code use, refund-after-offer, and suspicious redemption.

Output 3

Reason Factors

Repeated Device Reuse163 records

Linked Contact Details118 records

Unusual Checkout Speed91 records

Tight Claim Clustering74 records

Each factor is a named, readable rule — not a black-box score. It explains why confidence dropped: repeated device use, linked contact details, unusual checkout speed, tight claim clustering.

Output 4

Next-Campaign Recommendation

Tighten first-order eligibility checks+£1,800

Limit repeated code redemption by account/device pattern+£1,450

Add refund-after-offer review window before credit release+£900

Total estimated recovery potential £4,150

What to tighten before the next campaign, with estimated recovery potential. The goal is not to rebuild the promo stack — it is to fix the part of the journey where trust weakened most.

How to read this

The evidence review is not a score. It is a structured readout designed to answer practical commercial questions.

Reported vs Verified shows the gap

Your campaign dashboard says 1,842 new customers. The evidence review says 1,311 held up under scrutiny. The 531 gap is where budget waste may be hiding.

Waste Exposure breaks down the types

Not all waste is the same. First-order leakage, repeated code use, refund-after-offer, and suspicious redemption each need different responses.

Reason Factors explain why confidence dropped

Each factor is a named rule you can read and challenge. No hidden model, no opaque score. You can see why the evidence review flagged something and decide whether it matters for your business.

Recommendations are proportionate

Each recommendation estimates recovery potential. The goal is to fix what matters most before the next campaign — not to overhaul the entire promotion stack.

Why this matters commercially

The evidence review answers a narrow commercial question: did the budget reach the right participation, and what should change before the next campaign?

Earlier visibility

See where campaign trust weakened before the next budget decision, not after.

Less wasted follow-up

Stop retargeting and rewarding participation that did not deserve equal confidence.

Sharper prioritisation

Focus on the specific leakage types that cost the most, not a generic fraud score.

Proportionate next steps

Tighten what matters. Leave the rest alone. No over-engineering required.

Evidence clarity first. Protection later.

RealBuyerGrowth starts with an evidence review because the first problem is not enforcement — it is visibility. Most merchants do not yet know how much of their campaign activity was genuinely clean. The evidence review answers that question on one campaign, with named reasons and bounded confidence.

→

The first evidence review: Diagnose and observe

Run the evidence review on your next campaign. See what the live data shows. Understand where confidence dropped, and by how much.

→

Later: Protect with evidence

Move into live monitoring or protection only when the evidence review justifies it. Not before.