Know what your marketing
can prove.

Connect Google Ads, HubSpot, and Stripe.
Credit payments or leads with a model you can name. A missing source stays missing.

Nothing hidden as zero. Nothing claimed without proof.

One set of records.
Three ways to read it.

Source overviewSeptember
MetaNot connected yet
Google AdsAd spend
HubSpotLeads
StripePayments
The source stays attached.

Bring the records together.

Advertising, customers, and orders in a shared view. Keep the source and period attached to every result.

Attribution comparisonRevenue
Meta reported$56,000
Google Ads reported$52,000
weive · Linear$54,000
Platform reports stay separate from weive credit.

Compare the perspectives.

Read platform claims alongside your model. See the differences without combining overlapping totals.

✳weive
What was Google Ads spend?

Spend comes from the connected account. weive credit is the model’s split, and a missing source is not zero.

Source recordsCoverage gap
Keep the limits in the answer.

Make the next question clearer.

Turn the evidence into a useful explanation. Bring assumptions and gaps into the conversation.

Example figures. In the product, credit uses the model you select, and a missing source stays missing.

Advertising. Customer records. Revenue.

Google Ads, HubSpot, and Stripe connect
MetaGoogle AdsHubSpotStripe

Every report has a story.
Start with what holds it together.

Monday’s budget review. Two platforms claim the same sale. A source is missing. Before the next decision, bring the evidence into the room.

Three colleagues reviewing charts, notes, and a laptop around a desk

What actually supports
the result?

September reviewPartial coverage

The number is the beginning.

$48,000Source-matched revenue
Source recordsAvailable
Matching methodVisible
Additional spend sourceMissing

Illustrative evidence view

01

Bring the disagreement into view.

Platform reports can tell different stories. Compare the same period and keep each attribution perspective distinct.

02

Follow the thread to the records.

Inspect the source and matching rule. Separate what was observed from what was calculated or estimated.

03

Leave with a clearer next question.

A missing source becomes an action to investigate. A model becomes a method to review. The discussion has a shared basis.

Three perspectives.
Different kinds of evidence.

A platform claim, a record match, and a model estimate answer different questions. Keep the distinction visible before making the decision.

Platform reportedClaim
$56,000

Meta’s attribution perspective

Source matchedDerived
$48,000

Order values matched under a stated rule

✳Custom modelEstimated
$54,000

A separate modeled perspective

Illustrative data · values are not additive
01

Understand the claim.

Platform reports use their own attribution rules and windows. Two platforms can claim the same order.

02

Inspect the match.

A matched result has a source and a rule. Trace it to the records, and read it within its coverage.

03

Examine the estimate.

A model can offer another perspective. Its assumptions stay explicit, and its result stays separate from observed records.

Attribution describes credit.
It does not establish causation.

A result becomes useful when its context is visible.

Derived

Follow the evidence.

$48,000
Order recordsMatched
Campaign identifiersExamined
CalculationVisible
A number. Its source. Its method.

Inspect what supports the result.

Follow an attribution result back to the records and rule behind it. Keep the reasoning available, not buried.

SOURCE COVERAGE

A gap is still information.

Connected recordsAvailable
Additional sourceUnavailable
—Not measured.
Never disguised as $0.

See the edges of the picture.

Read every result alongside its coverage. A missing source stays visible so it cannot quietly change the story.

More than a number.
A reason to trust it.

Explore how evidence changes the story.
Every value needs context. Every gap deserves to be seen.

Attribution, with the context attached.Illustrative dataset · September 2026 · USD
OBSERVED / SOURCE RECORD

A fact, within a stated scope.

$25,000 is the spend present in the connected advertising records for this example. It does not include the unconnected source.

Source
Connected advertising records
Period
01–30 September 2026
Coverage
Connected source only
Method
Sum of recorded spend

See the trend.
Keep the evidence.

A chart should help explain a result. The period, source, and gaps stay in the picture.

Cumulative source-matched revenue$48,000
Matched revenueIllustrative · September 2026
Illustrative cumulative matched revenueMatched revenue grows from $6,000 to $48,000 across September. Known spend grows from $3,000 to $25,000. Values are illustrative, not customer results.$50k$35k$20k$5k04 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $6,00004 Sep08 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $11,00008 Sep12 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $19,00012 Sep16 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $26,00016 Sep20 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $35,00020 Sep25 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $41,00025 Sep30 Sep: cumulative matched revenue $48,00030 Sep

Matched revenue is derived. Known spend excludes the unavailable source. Modeled revenue is kept separate.

Chart data

Illustrative cumulative values in USD
Through dateMatched revenueKnown spend
04 September$6,000$3,000
08 September$11,000$7,000
12 September$19,000$10,000
16 September$26,000$14,000
20 September$35,000$17,000
25 September$41,000$21,000
30 September$48,000$25,000
Through 30 September$48,000Matched revenue
Known spend$25,000Available sources only
CoveragePartialOne source unavailable
September · USD

Read the spend.
Know the scope.

Meta$12,000
Google Ads$13,000
Additional sourceUnavailable

$25,000 of known spend. A missing source remains a gap, not a zero.

Ask a better question.
Get an answer you can inspect.

Generative AI should make the evidence easier to understand. Sources, calculations, and uncertainty belong in the answer.

✳ weive intelligenceInteractive concept
What can we say about September performance?
✳

The connected records show $48,000 in source-matched revenue and $25,000 in known ad spend. Their ratio is 1.92×, within that scope. An additional spend source is unavailable, so this is not a complete return comparison.

01 / Source records02 / Matching rule03 / Coverage

Record matching does not establish causation. Modeled revenue is excluded.

Ask weive

Example conversation. In the product, answers use connected accounts and the model.

01

Make the numbers readable.

Turn a result into a clear explanation, with the source and calculation still within reach.

02

Bring the gaps forward.

Surface missing records and incomplete periods before they become a confident conclusion.

03

Start with a grounded brief.

Shape the evidence into a useful draft for your next budget review. Keep human judgment in the loop.

01

Nothing hidden
as zero.

An empty field shouldn’t look like a measured result.

Missing sources, incomplete periods, and unavailable values stay visible. A true zero means a valid result within a defined scope.

02

Nothing claimed
without proof.

A confident statement needs an inspectable basis.

Keep source records, calculations, and assumptions distinct. Let the evidence set the strength of the conclusion.

Bring the threads
together.

A shared understanding of the data makes the next decision clearer.

Ad spendOrder recordsCustomer records
01

Establish the source.

Start with where a record came from and which period it covers. Keep the original context attached.

Matched resultDerived
$48,000

Order records + matching rule

Source attachedCoverage visible
02

Make the method visible.

Show how records become a result. Separate observations from calculations and estimates.

KnownPartialUnavailable
03

Keep the limits in view.

Read the result alongside its coverage. Decide with an understanding of what the evidence supports.

A team examining a laptop together in a bright shared workspaceFor the conversations behind the numbers.

For the people
behind the decision.

Marketing teams

Understand what a campaign result can support before moving the budget.

Analysts & agencies

Make your reasoning inspectable. Explain the source, method, and limits.

Business leaders

See the difference between a measured result, an estimate, and a gap.

Different teams.
The same need for clarity.

Illustrative case studies explore the questions evidence can help answer. These examples do not describe actual customer outcomes.

Two colleagues discussing their work in a relaxed shared officeCase study

Before moving spend,
examine the match.

A campaign looks stronger in one report than another. Start with the records, matching rule, and period.

Colleagues examining data together at a laptopCase study

Make the limits
part of the conversation.

An unconnected source changes the scope of the report. Explain the gap before presenting the conclusion.

Real voices.
Verifiable stories.

“

Proof belongs here, too.

This space is reserved for approved, attributable customer feedback. No customer testimonial is published yet.

Awaiting approved customer stories

Clarity starts
with asking.

What does evidence-grounded attribution mean?

It means reading an attribution result with its basis attached: the source records, the period, the method, and the coverage. A calculated or modeled result should be identified as such.

Why not show missing data as zero?

A zero says something was measured or validly calculated and the result was zero. Missing data says the result is unknown. Treating them as the same can change the decision.

Can estimates still be useful?

Yes, when they are visibly labeled and their assumptions and uncertainty are available. An estimate should not appear as an observed fact or be silently combined with measured revenue.

Does attribution prove a campaign caused a sale?

Matching records under an attribution method does not, by itself, establish causation. The conclusion should reflect the method and evidence used.

Are the numbers on this page real customer results?

No. The interactive view uses an illustrative dataset to explain evidence states. It demonstrates the design approach, not a live account connection or customer performance.

Bring your favorite harness.
Keep the evidence within reach.

A shared evidence layer for the way you work. Explore the AI coding ecosystem, from the terminal to the editor.

Ecosystem preview. Tool logos identify their respective products; weive connections are not demonstrated in this preview.

Enterprise security
with fine-grained
controls

Proposed product controls

Access
Scope
Review
  • Scope access to each connected source
  • Separate records, methods, and estimates
  • Keep requests and decisions inspectable
  • Set permissions for every harness
  • Place human review before actions
  • Keep source coverage visible

A clearer view.
A better starting point.

Get started