# Fictional RAR review: explain the mismatch before using the ratio

These are invented teaching inputs. No client account or LinkedIn matching algorithm was tested.

The fictional marketer supplies a Business Manager RAR capture for September 1–30, one owned ad account, USD, a 180-day lookback, member attribution, and the recorded model label “any engagements.” The source is fictional snapshot F-01, captured October 5 at 09:00 UTC against CRM snapshot CRM-100. The fictional CRM is Salesforce through the direct Business Manager CRM Sync route. Business Manager alias BM-A owns ad account A; reviewer Maya records admin access and installer Sam records the required API/object permissions in fictional receipt ACCESS-01. Sam verifies route-specific entitlement in PLAN-01. Maya records approval for sharing the CRM data with the owned account and its users in SHARE-01. The successful connection and generated report are recorded in SYNC-01. All four receipts are teaching assumptions, not real evidence. Those labels do not verify your account.

The report shows $60,000 influenced won revenue, $90,000 open pipeline, and $12,000 spend. The platform-observed ROAS is supplied as 5.0. The recalculated ratio is $60,000 / $12,000 = 5.0. Matching numbers do not resolve missing opportunities.

| Fictional opportunity | CRM state / amount | Report observation | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Example-A | Closed won / $40,000 | Included / $40,000 | Included won amount agrees in this supplied sample |
| Example-B | Closed won / $20,000 | Included / $20,000 | Included won amount agrees in this supplied sample |
| Example-C | Open / $90,000 | Included / $90,000 | Keep in open pipeline; exclude from won-revenue calculation |
| Example-D | Closed won / $15,000 | Membership and amount unknown | Hold reconciliation; ask CRM owner for association and membership evidence |

The two included won rows sum to $60,000. The CRM sample contains $75,000 won, including the unresolved Example-D. The $15,000 difference is a question to investigate. Do not add it to attributed revenue or claim it was definitely excluded by the model: membership and association evidence are missing.

Setup readiness in the fictional record is Ready on the supplied evidence. Interpretation is limited: the observed $60,000 and the 5.0 ratio can be reported with their exact scope, while full opportunity reconciliation remains Hold. Assigning Example-D to an owner does not clear that hold.

## What to say in the meeting

“The September report shows $60,000 influenced closed-won revenue under the recorded engagement model and a 180-day lookback. Against $12,000 spend, both the reported and recalculated ratios are 5.0. We also see $90,000 open pipeline, kept separate from revenue. One $15,000 closed-won opportunity in our sample still needs a membership and association check. These are influence figures; they do not establish incremental revenue caused by the ads.”

## A comparison that does not pass

The marketer supplies a second capture with $36,000 influenced won revenue and $12,000 spend. It uses another attribution setting and CRM snapshot CRM-101. The ratio is 3.0 if the supplied amount and spend scopes match. The change from 5.0 to 3.0 cannot be isolated to the attribution model because the underlying CRM data also changed. Keep the two observations separate and request a comparison with the same data snapshot and all other settings fixed. If the platform cannot provide that controlled comparison, retain the limitation.

## Missing and zero spend

With spend missing, the recalculated ratio is Unknown. With explicit zero spend, it is Undefined. Neither case produces 5.0, zero, or infinity. A separately observed platform ratio remains an observation to investigate, not a reason to invent the missing denominator.

## Next checks

1. CRM owner: inspect Example-D's stable ID, contact/company associations, dates, and exported membership. Save the evidence and explain the $15,000 discrepancy before closing reconciliation.
2. Report owner: preserve both capture settings and CRM snapshot references. Establish whether a controlled model comparison is available; otherwise describe the two snapshots without attributing the difference to one setting.
3. Marketing owner: use the checked influence record beside delivery and CRM cohorts in the recurring report. Keep any causal budget conclusion dependent on evidence beyond this attribution report.