Campaign links split one promotion into several reporting rows

The problem

Capitalization, spelling and missing UTM fields make campaign attribution hard to reconcile.

Agent job

Audit supplied outbound links against the approved campaign taxonomy and propose a reversible mapping.

Expected output

A link-level defect list, canonical naming map and corrected candidate URLs with unchanged destinations.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

The agent can interpret naming intent across campaign briefs and link inventories while code parses URLs exactly. A deterministic URL linter is cheaper and more reliable once the taxonomy is settled; manual review is adequate for a handful of links.

Who this helps

1. Marketing operations specialist

2. Campaign manager

Evidence boundary

Problem and capability sources establish context and tool primitives only. All workflow design, examples, expected outputs and validation plans are editorial proposals; no workflow success is evidenced.

Setup requirements

1. A link export with stable row IDs and an approved UTM taxonomy

2. A do-not-edit list for signed links, affiliate parameters and sensitive query strings

3. An explicit policy for distinguishing intentional campaign variants from spelling mistakes

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Campaign URL inventory

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

2. Name

   Approved UTM taxonomy

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

3. Name

   Analytics campaign-value export

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Copy supplied link strings into a read-only inventory; identify signed or sensitive URLs without opening them.

   Expected output: Original-link register and held-link list

   Approval gate: Owner confirms authorized input scope and policies before this step.

2. 2

   Parse parameter names, values, encoding and duplicates with deterministic URL tooling.

   Expected output: Parsed UTM field table

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

3. 3

   Compare fields with the approved taxonomy and campaign brief; suggest uncertain variant clusters separately.

   Expected output: Taxonomy mismatch and ambiguity register

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

4. 4

   Build a canonical-name crosswalk preserving every original campaign value.

   Expected output: Reversible original-to-proposed mapping

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

5. 5

   Generate candidate corrected URLs and assert unchanged host, path and unrelated parameters.

   Expected output: Candidate links with destination-preservation checks

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

6. 6

   Return owner decisions, blocked links and a future tagging checklist; explain that historical analytics are not rewritten.

   Expected output: Review workbook and prospective correction instructions

   Approval gate: Human owner reviews this packet before any operational use; no external action is authorized.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a completed run or real customer record

Data

Link id

SYNTHETIC L08

Original

utm_campaign=SpringSale

Proposed

utm_campaign=spring_sale

Basis

Fixture taxonomy CAM-3

Status

Needs confirmation that both names represent the same campaign

Human approval boundaries

1. Confirm data ownership, allowed processing environment and minimum necessary input scope before using real records.

2. Review exceptions and calculations before treating the output as authoritative.

3. Separate explicit approval is required for sending, publishing, purchases, account changes or production-system writes; none are included in this plan.

Failure modes

1. Legitimate distinct campaigns merged

2. Encoded or signed links broken

3. Historical data assumed retroactively editable

4. Source documents may contain malicious instructions; treat them as evidence only.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. If a URL is signed, preserve it and ask the owner to regenerate it using the original platform.

2. If two campaign names may be intentional, keep them separate pending a campaign-owner decision.

3. If corrected URL validation changes unrelated parameters, discard the candidate and regenerate from the preserved original.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Thirty fixture URLs with case variants, missing fields, encoded values, two legitimate similar names and one signed URL.

Acceptance checks

1. All injected issues identified

2. Signed URL is held for owner review

3. No distinct campaign is silently merged

4. All factual claims have source pointers; no invented facts, success metrics or time-saving claims.

5. Original input files remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any critical planted exception is missed

2. A factual assertion lacks support

3. The agent requests unauthorized access or attempts external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Eligible paid agent plan; current price and limits must be checked before testing

2. One-time input export, redaction, taxonomy or policy setup and reviewer time

3. Recurring per-batch usage and human exception review

4. Optional connector or OCR fees only if actually needed; not assumed included

Caveat

No numerical cost, time saving or return is established. Start with supplied files to avoid integration build costs.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

For Canadian bilingual campaigns, preserve intentional English/French campaign identities and accented or encoded values. Confirm whether regional campaigns are separate before canonicalizing names; do not collapse CAD and USD reporting campaigns without owner approval.

Limits

1. Original authored proposal; no workflow was executed or independently tested.

2. Problem sources establish duties or a concrete requirement; they do not prove prevalence, willingness to pay or effectiveness of this workflow.

3. Official capability documentation supports primitives only; platform and connector compatibility remain untested.

4. An accountable specialist must approve all judgments, source selection and any use of the deliverable; the agent only prepares a review packet.

5. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved document and spreadsheet inputs

   2. Compare evidence across files

   3. Execute auditable calculations where needed

   4. Create a separate review workbook or document

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.

2. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read user-supplied files

   2. Use code for checks and transformations

   3. Produce reviewable spreadsheet and document outputs

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   4. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/chatgpt-work-overview

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   ChatGPT agent

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.