- 01
Agree on useful categories
Choose source categories the team can apply consistently. Separate a personal recommendation, a remembered search, a known campaign interaction, and an unknown response when those distinctions matter. Do not add detail that the team cannot reliably collect.
- 02
Keep evidence types separate
Label patient-reported information separately from technical attribution. Both can be informative, but neither is a complete explanation on its own. Avoid overwriting one with the other merely to make a report easier to total.
- 03
Handle incomplete answers honestly
Allow unknown or multiple influences where the process supports them. A guessed source can make a chart look tidy while weakening decisions. Review how the question is asked before blaming the data for being incomplete.
- 04
Use the findings proportionately
Look for patterns large enough to inform a decision and note limitations. Avoid treating every source category as equally measurable. Record changes in the collection process so later comparisons remain interpretable.
A planning exercise, not a client result
Put the idea to work
Planning exercise: a person reports a friend’s recommendation but technical records show a later search click. Preserve both facts with their meanings. Crediting only one can hide the way reputation and discovery worked together.
What to watch for
- A guessed source replacing an unknown answer
- Patient reports overwritten by platform attribution
- Changing categories without noting the date