I85PREP
⌘ K
Adobe Analytics Architect Master study materials
Adobe Analytics Architect Master study resources

Processing Rules vs. Data Layer Fix for a Campaign Leak

Adobe Analytics Architect Master · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Processing Rules vs. Data Layer Fix for a Campaign Leak

A B2B SaaS company captures campaign codes in a cid query parameter and maps it to a campaign eVar via a processing rule. Recently, marketing reports that paid-search campaigns are being credited with organic signups. Investigation shows the cid parameter is sometimes appended to internal navigation links (a legacy redirect), so cid appears on pages where it shouldn't. The processing rule sets campaign whenever cid exists. There is also a signup event that fires on form completion. The team wants a fast fix but governance requires that campaign attribution be defensible and that no PII enter the campaign eVar.

1. Evaluate a processing-rule-only fix versus a data-layer fix. Which do you recommend and why?

Read the worked answer

Processing-rule-only fix is a band-aid; the data-layer fix is the durable solution.

Processing rule options:

  • Add conditions to the rule (e.g., only set campaign when the hit is a landing page, or when cid matches a known campaign pattern). This can reduce leakage quickly.
  • Risk: rules operate on what arrives; if cid is on internal pages, the rule must encode page-type logic, which is fragile and duplicates business logic in Adobe rather than at source.

Data-layer fix:

  • Stop appending cid to internal navigation links (fix the legacy redirect), and only pass cid into the data layer on genuine campaign landings.
  • Validate cid format against an allowlist/pattern before it enters the data layer.

Recommendation: do the data-layer fix as the source-of-truth correction, and use a short-lived processing rule as a guardrail (e.g., only set campaign on first landing page of a visit, and only if cid matches the campaign pattern) while the redirect is fixed. Then remove or tighten the guardrail.

Governance: add validation that cid cannot contain email/PII patterns; log rejected values.

2. How would you prove the fix worked and that attribution is now defensible?

Read the worked answer

Validation plan:

  1. Before/after campaign attribution by landing page type: confirm paid-search campaigns no longer appear on organic signups.
  2. Trace a known internal navigation path with the debugger: confirm cid is absent and campaign is not set.
  3. Trace a genuine campaign landing: confirm cid is captured and campaign is set correctly.
  4. Reconcile against ad platform data: compare campaign-attributed signups to the ad platform's click/conversion counts for a sample period; large divergence signals remaining leakage.
  5. PII scan: sample campaign values and confirm none contain email/name patterns; confirm the validation rule is logging rejects.
  6. Document the rule logic and its expiry (if a temporary guardrail) so it is removed after the redirect fix.

Defensibility requires both a clean source and a documented, reviewed rule - not just a drop in reported numbers.