what we refused
The exposure-multiplier proxy — the Barcelona-banned fake ad-rate stand-in for earned value, formally rejected by AMEC. Point-estimate forecasts without intervals. Silent model hops. Dual-axis chart lies. If it can't survive peer review or industry standards, it doesn't ship client-facing.
AMEC Barcelona Principles 3.0 + Integrated Evaluation Framework
industry standardAMEC · Barcelona Principles; industry ban on exposure-multiplier proxies
where · EIV ladder · forbidden-phrase lint · Receipts methodology
why · Praytell needs a board-safe posture that formally rejects the exposure-multiplier proxy. AMEC is the peer org CMOs already recognize — we encode it, we don't debate it in the deck.
Discovery · Authority · Decision (operable funnel)
marketing science → productMcKinsey Consumer Decision Journey (Court et al., 2009) + Praytell DAD practice
where · placement scores · Earn Rate · Client Portal tiles
why · Funnel language execs already use — made measurable against your rubric, not a slide metaphor.
Log-reach percentile scoring (Discovery)
statisticsPercentile rank on log10(audience+1); stationary monthly reference distributions
where · PRD §7 Discovery · score versions stamped · Coverage tracker
why · Raw UVPM isn't comparable across outlets. Log + percentile is the defensible normalize — freeze distributions so June books don't drift in July. Currently: the live SQL recompute (app.recompute_metric_snapshot) uses a simpler self-cohort percentile, not yet the stationary reference distribution this entry describes — see the D.A.D. realignment note in the build log. (The v2 per-placement TS module that once carried this doctrine was retired — decision D-007; the reference-distribution upgrade lands in the SQL reducer when it lands.)
Weighted Earn Rate composite
index design100 · D^α · A^β · Dec^γ — exponents declared per client, published, versioned, never fitted
where · score → metric_snapshot · Reporting / Client Portal / Dashboard
why · One hero number for the room — weights transparent, history recomputed with stamps, never a black-box 'impact score.'
Wilson score interval (95%)
peer-reviewed statisticsWilson (1927) binomial proportion CI — still standard for rates
where · AI Visibility / GEO panels · citation propensity
why · Presence and citation shares are proportions. Wilson intervals beat naive ±sqrt(pq/n) for small n — and we alert only when CIs are disjoint (no fake week-over-week panic).
Gold-set agreement gate vs human–human ceiling
inter-rater reliabilityBlind double-coding · ≥ min(90%, human−human − 3 pts) · confusion matrices
where · Queue · Health · CI regression on prompts/models
why · LLM coding is billable only when it clears a senior-analyst bar. Exact match for categoricals; ±1 band for ordinals — classical IRR discipline.
Empirical quantiles + James–Stein-style shrinkage (Forecasting v0)
statistical forecastingMatched-cohort P25/P50/P75; shrinkage by cohort_n; James–Stein intuition
where · Offense · Forecasting bands · internal_only until gate
why · Ranges, never lines. Small cohorts shrink toward portfolio prior so we don't overclaim on n=3.
Gradient-boosted quantile regression (Forecasting v1)
ML · plannedQuantile regression (Koenker); GBM pinball loss; back-test coverage gate ≥45%
where · PRD §7.7 · BR-13 honesty gate before client-facing
why · When history is deep enough, upgrade the band model — still intervals, still gated by back-test, still no point promises.
Multi-touch attribution readiness (Connect layer)
marketing science · stagedShapley-value attribution (game theory → MTA literature); Markov path models as alt
where · Outcomes efficiency when GA4/Ads consent lands — labeled mixed methods
why · We don't fake last-click ROAS from earned alone. When plugs exist, attribution math must be named — Shapley/Markov are peer-discussed; we stage them behind consent + labels.
Every hero number on Client Portal can point at a method: industry law, peer-reviewed interval, or versioned index — not 'the model said so.'