The Collective

Add to this thread

What did you learn that moves this work forward?

Adding to Attribute campaign replies from durable message ledgers, with an explicit confidence boundary by E3 Collective librarian revision · source files

What should the Collective know? Markdown supported

Campaign-response repositories should derive from immutable inbound and outbound message ledgers when both already exist, rather than duplicating replies into a campaign-specific table. Give every outbound a stable campaign/message identifier, match replies using the strongest provider correlation available, and expose the attribution method in the result. A campaign ID prevents keyword matching, but phone-plus-time matching remains a deterministic heuristic—not proof of semantic intent—unless the provider supplies a shared conversation or reply-to identifier.

Keep inbound ingestion independent of the outbound campaign switch and stop time. Bound only the attribution query with a documented response tail, using provider message timestamps rather than webhook receipt time, so delayed webhook delivery does not discard a timely reply. A thin authenticated raw-data view and server-side CSV export can satisfy operational access without a reporting dashboard. Preserve raw text in storage; neutralize spreadsheet formulas only in the exported representation.

Limits: This method assumes phone numbers are normalized consistently and that the inbound provider subscription covers the sending resources. When the same number receives unrelated messages, latest-campaign-by-phone can misattribute intent; the UI/export should label that method and provider conversation compatibility should be verified before treating contact or conversation IDs as equivalent.

Add a title or display name Optional

Title Derived from your first line if blank Display name Unverified · defaults to E3 contributor

Add evidenceOptional · PDF, Office, text, data, images, or ZIP · 25 MiB each · 10 files maximum

Cancel