Channel-specific measures
Search coverage, XML valid requests, RTB win rate, video completion and CPA conversions answer different questions. Work with the measures relevant to the product you operate.
Reporting & reconciliation
Reconcile local activity with partner NET reports.
A request, a reported impression and a partner-confirmed result are different things. Nexus gives each channel its own reporting vocabulary, with breakdowns that help you investigate traffic, delivery and commercial performance.
- 01Choose a channel
- 02Select a date range
- 03Break down the result
- 04Compare partner NET
Inside the workflow
Choose dimensions. Compare results. Export your report.
Explore the settings and reports behind the headline, then review the configuration your deployment needs.
Dimensions with a purpose
Investigate results by the source and request attributes available in each report. The breakdown may be a search keyword, an RTB bundle or a video application environment.
Partner NET reporting
Search, XML and RTB administration expose partner NET reporting fields. Configure the supported provider adapter and its update settings before comparing local and partner-reported results.
Your working report
Report templates and a column chooser let operators arrange the available fields for their routine analysis. CSV export is available in the reporting interface.
A separate financial overview
The financial dashboard provides background snapshots on a five-minute cycle. It is an overview, not a promise that every partner feed or channel metric refreshes at that interval.
From exceptions to investigation
Requests with errors, invalid traffic and differences between local and NET figures give the team a starting point. Review the relevant partner and configuration before changing delivery rules.
Inside the operation
Explore Reporting & reconciliation in operation.
Choose a stage to see its controls. This is a workflow explanation; explore the actual platform in a demo.
Reporting & reconciliationWorkflow
01 / Channel evidenceReportsLocal activity
02 / NexusAlign & compare
- Period
- Partner
- Dimensions
03 / Partner importsNETWhere configured
Possible outcomes
Aligned evidenceorDifference to investigate
04 / REVIEWRequests · Valid / invalid traffic · Clicks
Set the context
Select the period, relevant account or source and the available report dimensions.
- Period
- Partner
- Currency / dimensions
See it with your team.
Bring your operating requirements. We will walk through the current interface and the relevant configuration, integrations and reporting controls.
Inside Nexus reportingMetrics, dimensions and reporting workflows
Search Syndication
Search reporting
Compare monetized searches, EPC, RPM and profit by source or keyword.
Explore the product ↗Available indicators
Report context
Publisher / link · Feed · Country · OS / browser · Device · Domain · Keyword list · Keyword count
Search SyndicationWorkflow
01 / Search queryPublisherLink · keyword · SubID
02 / NexusMatch & route
- Feed assignment
- Targeting
- Search caps
03 / Eligible feedProviderURL macros · revenue share
Possible outcomes
Eligible resultorNo eligible result
04 / REVIEWSearches · Monetized · Unique IPs
Search-specific reports
Compare searches, monetized traffic, visitors, unique IPs, cost, revenue, EPC, RPM, profit and ROI. Switch to Keyword List or Keyword Count views.
- Searches / clicks
- EPC / RPM
- Partner NET
Synthetic data · guided walkthrough
Investigate a local / NET reporting difference.
Follow three checks using authored example figures. This teaching worksheet does not connect to a provider, change a report or demonstrate a customer's results.
Check scope before interpreting the gap
The local export contains 120 clicks and the partner NET export contains 114. Their cutoffs have not been aligned, so the six-click difference is not yet a like-for-like discrepancy rate.
- Original local export
- 120
- Local clicks compared
- 120
- Partner NET clicks
- 114
- Difference
- 6 clicks
Rate withheld until the comparison scope is aligned.
| Source | Local compared | Partner NET | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample feed A | 72 | 70 | 2 |
| Sample feed B | 48 | 44 | 4 |
Next check: Confirm reporting timezone, cutoff, accepted-event definition and update time.
A day in the platform
From setup to a decision.
A practical workflow for your reporting operation, with the relevant controls at each step.
- 01
Start with the question
Choose the channel and report: publisher, affiliate, feed, exchange, demand, video or offer performance.
- 02
Set the context
Select the period, relevant account or source and the available report dimensions.
- 03
Inspect the difference
Compare volume, delivery and commercial fields. Keep local counts and partner NET figures distinct.
- 04
Keep a useful view
Arrange columns, use a report template or export the available report for further analysis.
Reporting that fits the channel
Compare traffic, quality and commercial results.
Keep delivery, traffic quality and commercial results in context. Available dimensions depend on the selected report.
Explore reporting & data freshness ↗Performance indicators
Ways to break it down
Channel-specific reports · Date range · Account / partner · Source identifiers · Traffic attributes
Deployment scope. Report fields and dimensions vary by channel. Data freshness depends on the service and provider update settings. A difference in local and NET counts is not, by itself, evidence of fraud or a billing error.
Know before you launch
Useful distinctions.
Clear expectations.
Good operations start with a shared understanding of what is configured, what is measured and what needs validation.
- Technical scenario: a direct integration reports different NET totals
- Consider an operator whose local click report differs from a directly connected partner’s NET report. The task is to explain which activity each report includes before drawing a commercial conclusion. This is an illustrative investigation scenario, not a named or anonymized customer case or a claim of achieved results.
- Review the reporting contract and source mapping
- Compare the same partner, feed and SubID over the same completed period and timezone. Confirm event definitions, acceptance filters, currency and reporting update timestamps. Check the direct adapter’s field mapping and import settings, then isolate any remaining difference to the source dimensions that both reports support.
- Keep a traceable resolution record
- Retain both original exports, the comparison settings and the explanation for each confirmed difference. Record who owns the next check and when the partner report is considered complete. The intended outcome is a repeatable reconciliation process, not a promise that every discrepancy disappears or that revenue improves.
- Local versus NET
- Local figures describe the platform’s recorded activity. NET fields are the corresponding measures obtained through a configured partner reporting integration. Do not treat the two as interchangeable.
- Coverage versus conversion
- Coverage describes a delivery-related measure in a channel report. A conversion represents an outcome in the performance workflow. Read them in their own product context.
- Useful comparisons
- Compare like-for-like periods, partners, currencies and report dimensions. Confirm the provider update window before investigating a discrepancy.
- Illustrative reconciliation: 120 versus 114 clicks
- For a fictional completed reporting period, suppose the local report shows 120 clicks and the partner NET report shows 114. The absolute difference is 6; using the local count as the explicitly chosen denominator, 6 / 120 × 100 = 5%. This is sample arithmetic, not a customer result, an acceptable discrepancy threshold or a Nexus metric formula. Record which count is the denominator when sharing the comparison.
- First align the comparison
- Check the same start/end times and timezone, the same affiliate or publisher link, the same feed and source breakdown, and the same validity or acceptance scope. Check whether the provider has finished reporting that period. For money, also align currency and gross/net or revenue-share treatment. A date label alone is not proof that two exports describe the same activity.
- Then isolate the remaining difference
- Break the fictional six-click gap down by the dimensions available in the relevant report. If it concentrates in one feed or SubID, inspect that connection and its import settings. If the partner period is incomplete, wait for its agreed update window before drawing a conclusion. Retain separate local and partner values; replacing one with the other hides the evidence needed to resolve the mismatch.
- Do not turn a count gap into an invoice claim
- A click discrepancy does not directly establish a revenue discrepancy. Price models, accepted events, adjustments and commercial terms can differ. Likewise, NET is a provider-reporting label here, not a universal accounting definition of profit. Keep a record of the report filters, update timestamp, expected adjustment process and responsible partner contact before deciding which figure governs settlement.
- Recommendation: prepare a comparable evidence pack
- Export local and partner figures for one completed period. Record the timezone, selected partner, feed or SubID, event definition and report update time. Keep credentials and personal traffic records out of a demo request; begin with aggregate figures and redacted examples.
- Recommendation: review the direct integration when the gap persists
- If the same source continues to differ after the agreed partner update window, check adapter field mapping, identifiers, acceptance rules and import status with the integration owner. A persistent gap is a reason to investigate, not proof of fraud or an instruction to replace one report with the other.
- Recommendation: agree a verification checkpoint
- Assign an owner to each unresolved difference, define which report governs settlement under the partner agreement and repeat the comparison after the next completed reporting update. Record the explanation and remaining unknowns before changing traffic policy or commercial settings.
- Make the investigation repeatable
- Choose the needed columns and available dimensions, save a report view or export CSV, and record the comparison assumptions alongside the evidence. Investigate representative accepted and rejected samples through the approved integration process where aggregate reports are insufficient. A useful resolution explains the source of the difference and the next check; it does not silently change traffic rules just to make two totals agree.
Published by Nexus Soft.
Content revised
Sources and product scope
Product references describe available controls and their limits. Examples are illustrative.
The connected operation
Keep the rest of the workflow in view.
01 / Operations
Reporting & reconciliation
Channel metrics, source breakdowns and partner NET figures — explained in their own context.
Explore the workflow ↗02 / OperationsPush Subscribers & publishers
Direct publisher websites, subscription settings, subscriber inventory and reporting.
Explore the workflow ↗03 / OperationsAdvertiser self-serve
Multi-format direct campaigns, CPC and CPM buying, funds, account balance and reporting.
Explore the workflow ↗See it with your team
Bring the report you wish you had.
We will map your questions to the available channel reports, provider integrations and any additional development required.