# Facebook bid strategy decision worksheet

Use one worksheet per campaign scope. Fill in the evidence you have; leave missing fields Unknown. This worksheet prepares a decision for the campaign owner. It does not establish account eligibility or authorize an ad change.

## 1. Define the result

- Organization and owner:
- Review date:
- Campaign/ad set reference (private):
- Campaign objective and conversion location:
- Exact performance goal / optimization event:
- What creates that event in the source system:
- Current bid strategy as displayed in this account:
- Other controls actually available in this configuration, and observation date:
- Platform source and reporting window:
- Attribution setting/window and model, where applicable:
- Report date basis (impression date, conversion date, or other):
- CRM source and cohort maturity:
- Current event-delivery evidence and unresolved measurement problems:

## 2. Separate your constraints

- Budget, currency, time period, and whether daily or lifetime:
- Main business constraint (result volume, average cost, purchase value/return, or auction bid):
- Spend priority: must seek volume within budget / willing to leave budget unspent / Unknown:
- Average cost per platform result target, if actually approved:
- Business cost per qualified lead or customer target, if actually approved:
- Auction bid ceiling, if independently justified:
- Value source: observed transaction value / documented modeled value / Unknown:
- Value optimization eligibility evidence:
- Minimum ROAS goal, if approved, and numerator definition:
- ROAS units: conversion value / ad spend; matched currency and scope. 2x = 200%, not profit.
- Who owns changes and who can approve them:

A platform lead and a CRM-qualified lead are different denominators. A desired cost per customer is not automatically an auction bid or a cost-per-lead control. A documented modeled value is not observed purchase revenue.

## 3. Record the baseline

- Spend:
- Platform results and exact definition:
- Reported cost per result:
- Distinct CRM-qualified results:
- Observed transaction value:
- Known reporting lag / incomplete outcomes:
- Material changes during this period:
- Can the platform and CRM scopes actually be reconciled? Evidence or Unknown:

Only calculate a ratio when numerator, denominator, scope, and maturity support it. Missing values stay Unknown. A denominator of zero makes the ratio undefined; report the underlying zero, not zero cost or infinite performance.

## 4. Choose a candidate and explain the tradeoff

- Candidate strategy or hold:
- Why its controlled quantity matches this task:
- Actual available-setting evidence:
- Why the other controls are less appropriate here:
- Expected tradeoff, including possible underdelivery:
- Assumptions requiring owner confirmation:
- Evidence that would change the choice:

Reference: volume-oriented automatic bidding does not set a hard reported-cost ceiling. Cost cap aims for cost efficiency but its adherence is not guaranteed. A bid cap constrains the auction bid, not the reported CPA. Value/ROAS controls require the relevant optimization capability and appropriate value signals. Verify the current account configuration instead of inferring availability from a generic table.

## 5. Prepare one controlled change

- Current configuration snapshot:
- One variable proposed to change:
- Exact proposed setting and units (or Unknown):
- Variables to keep fixed:
- Evaluation window, lag-aware final review date, and why they fit the event/CRM lag:
- Attribution settings and date basis to keep fixed or analyze separately:
- Budget and loss limit approved by the owner; define the calculation and observation source:
- Evidence to collect: delivery/spend, platform results, CRM quality, and value where relevant:
- Under-delivery diagnostic order:
- Stop/revert condition:
- Previous configuration to restore:
- Owner decision and reference:

A local worksheet or AI answer cannot approve this change. No campaign, budget, token, or bidding API operation follows automatically from completing the worksheet.

## 6. Review the result

- Intended vs actual period and configuration:
- Was enough comparable delivery observed to interpret the test? Evidence or Unknown:
- Observed spend and results with definitions:
- CRM-quality change within a reconciled cohort:
- What is still immature or unknown:
- Continue / revise / restore / hold, with reason:
- Next owner and evidence needed:

Keep low delivery separate from high measured cost. If a constraint limits auction access, the test may spend less without proving better business efficiency. Preserve the first result and the original configuration before making another change.

## Sources and terminology

Checked 30 October 2026 UTC. Familiar Ads Manager labels follow Jon Loomer; Meta documents the API mechanisms. Cost per result goal corresponds to the cost-cap mechanism; the familiar UI label does not establish availability in your account. Highest value uses uncapped bidding with VALUE optimization, rather than a fifth API strategy.

- Meta bid mechanisms: https://developers.facebook.com/documentation/ads-commerce/marketing-api/bidding/overview/bid-strategy
- Meta pacing: https://developers.facebook.com/documentation/ads-commerce/marketing-api/bidding/overview/pacing-and-scheduling
- UI terminology and practitioner guidance: https://www.jonloomer.com/bid-strategies-best-practices-for-meta-advertising/

The decision and change-review sequence is Maestro editorial guidance, not a Meta eligibility rule. Verify the actual available controls.