Platform over-attribution
How many more orders an ad platform claims than your own tracking can credit to it. It tells you how far to trust the numbers in Ads Manager, channel by channel.
A gap within ±15% is a normal band. Beyond it, the platform is over-claiming or under-seeing.
What is platform over-attribution?
Each ad platform counts the purchases it believes it caused. It can't see what other channels did, and its rules lean towards claiming more. So Meta and Google together often report more orders than your store actually received.
Over-attribution puts a number on that. It compares what a platform claims with what your own tracking credits to the same platform, using every order your store received. The bigger the gap, the less you should lean on that platform's reporting.
How it's calculated
You need the platform's own conversion count and an independent count of the same thing. The independent count only works if every order reaches your tracking. BooleanMaths merges pixel, Shopify webhook and shipping data at the order ID so none slip through.
| Input | Source | What it gives us |
|---|---|---|
| Platform purchases | Meta, Google or other ad platform API | What the platform claims, at its default attribution setting |
| Tracked orders | Your own tracking, credited per channel | Orders that channel can actually be tied to |
| Total store orders | Shopify | A ceiling: no set of channels can truly own more than this |
Where the gap comes from
Worked examples
Example 1: Meta's claim drifting away from reality
An illustrative month on Meta. Real orders tied to Meta stay roughly flat, while Meta's own count keeps climbing.
| Week | Meta-reported orders | Tracked orders | Over-attribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 640 | 560 | 14% |
| Week 2 | 700 | 570 | 23% |
| Week 3 | 760 | 540 | 41% |
| Week 4 | 800 | 530 | 51% |
| Month | 2,900 | 2,200 | 32% |
- Week 1Inside the band. Meta's numbers are close enough to steer by alongside tracked data.
- Weeks 3–4Meta reports more sales each week while tracked orders fall. Anyone scaling on Ads Manager here is scaling on claims, not orders.
Example 2: Two platforms claiming the same store
The same illustrative month. The store received 4,000 orders in total. Meta claims 2,900 and Google claims 1,650: 4,550 orders between them, more than the store ever had.
Using it to decide
Over-attribution tells you how much weight a platform's own numbers deserve. Check it weekly per channel and per large campaign. Treat these bands as starting points.
Common mistakes
- Reading it as a tracking errorA big positive gap is the platform over-claiming, not your data going missing.
- One number for the whole accountRetargeting and prospecting inflate very differently. Break it down by campaign.
- Treating it as fixedThe gap moves with creatives, audiences and platform changes. Recheck weekly.
- Turning off platform optimisationOver-claiming is a reporting problem. Keep feeding platforms signal; just don't budget on their reports.
Frequently asked questions
Why do Meta and Google together claim more orders than I had?
Each platform only sees its own touches. A customer who clicked both gets claimed by both, and view-throughs add more. The sum isn't meant to match your store, so it usually doesn't.
Is a 15% gap a problem?
Not usually. Models and windows differ slightly between any two systems. Within roughly ±15%, the platform is broadly in line. Tune the band to what you see across your own accounts.
Can I reduce over-attribution?
You can't change how a platform reports, but you can narrow its attribution setting and stop deciding on its numbers. What matters is that budget follows true ROAS.
Related metrics
Know how much each platform over-claims
BooleanMaths compares every platform's reported orders with the orders it can actually be tied to, so you know which numbers to trust.
Platform over-attribution
How many more orders an ad platform claims than your own tracking can credit to it. It tells you how far to trust the numbers in Ads Manager, channel by channel.
A gap within ±15% is a normal band. Beyond it, the platform is over-claiming or under-seeing.
What is platform over-attribution?
Each ad platform counts the purchases it believes it caused. It can't see what other channels did, and its rules lean towards claiming more. So Meta and Google together often report more orders than your store actually received.
Over-attribution puts a number on that. It compares what a platform claims with what your own tracking credits to the same platform, using every order your store received. The bigger the gap, the less you should lean on that platform's reporting.
How it's calculated
You need the platform's own conversion count and an independent count of the same thing. The independent count only works if every order reaches your tracking. BooleanMaths merges pixel, Shopify webhook and shipping data at the order ID so none slip through.
| Input | Source | What it gives us |
|---|---|---|
| Platform purchases | Meta, Google or other ad platform API | What the platform claims, at its default attribution setting |
| Tracked orders | Your own tracking, credited per channel | Orders that channel can actually be tied to |
| Total store orders | Shopify | A ceiling: no set of channels can truly own more than this |
Where the gap comes from
Worked examples
Example 1: Meta's claim drifting away from reality
An illustrative month on Meta. Real orders tied to Meta stay roughly flat, while Meta's own count keeps climbing.
| Week | Meta-reported orders | Tracked orders | Over-attribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 640 | 560 | 14% |
| Week 2 | 700 | 570 | 23% |
| Week 3 | 760 | 540 | 41% |
| Week 4 | 800 | 530 | 51% |
| Month | 2,900 | 2,200 | 32% |
- Week 1Inside the band. Meta's numbers are close enough to steer by alongside tracked data.
- Weeks 3–4Meta reports more sales each week while tracked orders fall. Anyone scaling on Ads Manager here is scaling on claims, not orders.
Example 2: Two platforms claiming the same store
The same illustrative month. The store received 4,000 orders in total. Meta claims 2,900 and Google claims 1,650: 4,550 orders between them, more than the store ever had.
Using it to decide
Over-attribution tells you how much weight a platform's own numbers deserve. Check it weekly per channel and per large campaign. Treat these bands as starting points.
Common mistakes
- Reading it as a tracking errorA big positive gap is the platform over-claiming, not your data going missing.
- One number for the whole accountRetargeting and prospecting inflate very differently. Break it down by campaign.
- Treating it as fixedThe gap moves with creatives, audiences and platform changes. Recheck weekly.
- Turning off platform optimisationOver-claiming is a reporting problem. Keep feeding platforms signal; just don't budget on their reports.
Frequently asked questions
Why do Meta and Google together claim more orders than I had?
Each platform only sees its own touches. A customer who clicked both gets claimed by both, and view-throughs add more. The sum isn't meant to match your store, so it usually doesn't.
Is a 15% gap a problem?
Not usually. Models and windows differ slightly between any two systems. Within roughly ±15%, the platform is broadly in line. Tune the band to what you see across your own accounts.
Can I reduce over-attribution?
You can't change how a platform reports, but you can narrow its attribution setting and stop deciding on its numbers. What matters is that budget follows true ROAS.
Related metrics
Know how much each platform over-claims
BooleanMaths compares every platform's reported orders with the orders it can actually be tied to, so you know which numbers to trust.