Pull attention scores from the vendors you use, tag each with the method that produced it, apply them inside the rules your team set, and check whether the outcome you're optimizing for actually moved.
Reads the score, not the decision to reweight the plan
In
01
A score arrives from a vendor, carrying the method that produced it — panel, camera, survey or model.
02
Each score is tagged to its measurement method before anything else runs against it.
Reason
03
A plan is built inside rules your planning lead set, and a score can move it only within them.
04
Scores from different methods are held apart on the record, never averaged into one figure.
05
Prior plan history and each vendor's accreditation status inform the check, dated and named.
Decide
06
A cross-method comparison or an overstated accreditation claim is flagged before it reaches the plan.
07
Every rule-triggered plan change is routed to the planning lead, never applied unattended.
Out
08
The score, its method, the rule applied and the planning lead's decision are kept against the plan.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent applies scores inside the rules the planning lead set — never blending methods, never touching spend on its own; the planning lead decides when a rule changes, and the outcome, not the score, is what the plan answers for.
Example workflow
One score, method to decision
AgentHuman
1Score receivedA vendor score feed, a plan build, an accreditation update or a renewal check
2Method assembledScore, source method, vendor accreditation status and prior plan history, each with its source
3Match proposedMatched rule, method tag, flagged comparisons and confidence
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing changes the plan at any of them — the agent matches, and the planning lead's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the planning lead to approve.
Low confidence
Adds a second method read first.
Planner review
The match is held with its method tag, its flagged comparisons and the confidence.
Approve · Edit · Escalate
Approved — applied to the plan▼
6Planning systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedEdit distance, flagged-comparison outcomes, plan acceptance and post-flight corrections
Edits
Every planning-lead edit is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Buying media or committing spend on an attention score.
Reweighting a media plan on its own.
Converting one vendor's score into another vendor's scale.
Reporting an attention score as a campaign outcome.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Read each vendor's score against the method that produced it.
✓Hold scores from different methods apart, never merged.
✓Apply scores inside the planning rules configured for your team.
✓Flag a cross-vendor comparison or an outcome.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.
Averaging or blending scores from different measurement methods.
Confirming a vendor's current MRC accreditation status.
Deciding that attention predicts a sales or conversion result.
Changes to method rules, accreditation status or approval thresholds.
Example output
One score, annotated
Everything the agent applies is attached to the score it was drawn from.
Attention-measurement output · single scoreIllustrative example
Placement
Score
Method
Evidence source
Confidence
Attribution
Mid-flight video buy
Modelled score reported for a non-panel CTV placement
Signal-based (modelled)
This week's vendor feed
81%
Planning-lead name on file
As receivedTaken from the vendor's feed and its published method note — nothing on this side is converted by the agent.
Evidence checkedVendor score feedMethod taxonomy tagAccreditation record
Why it's flaggedThis score comes from a modelled, signal-based method.
ActionApproveEditEscalate
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the match picks up a second method read before it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every scoreFrom the vendor feed
03Matching
Match every score to its method
Match each vendor's score to its stated method and the rule configured for it.
01Approved path
Two scores, two different things
A panel eye-tracking score and a modelled signal-based score can share a scale and still measure different things — nothing in either file makes them the same unit.
02Human review
Send review to the flagged
Cross-method comparisons and accreditation gaps are marked, so the planning lead's read starts where the risk concentrates.
04Build an evidence trail
The score, the method it came from and the planner who applied it stay on the buy.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A single attention index can look steady across a plan while a handful of placements carry scores that were never comparable to begin with. Nestack reports the comparability-defect rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Scores mixed across two vendors
7.4%
3.8×
Review
Modelled scores on non-panel inventory
5.6%
2.9×
Review
Cross-format plans
3.5%
1.8×
Watch
Single-vendor, single-format plans
1.9%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: comparability-defect rate lift vs. the single-vendor baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop closes on the method, not the score
A cycle shuts when the mixed method is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next plan scored is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Comparability-defect rate rises in a plan slice.
02Diagnose
The two scores that agreed on nothing are checked against the method each came from and the plan they were applied to until one cause explains it.
03Improve
The change ships against a version, with the buys that exposed it attached.
04Verify
A failing comparability case holds the release until it clears.
05Learn
The case joins the standing suite and the method rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Detection next time runs against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, matching workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Planning discovery and boundary scoping and boundary definition.
02Vendor feed and ad-server assessment.
03Method taxonomy and rule mapping and it is logged..
04Score intake and method normalisation.
05Matching logic and rule binding.
06Confidence scoring and flag routing.
07Planning-lead approval workflow.
08Ad-server and DSP integration.
09Comparability regression cases.
10Guardrails and application controls.
11Buy-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne vendor, one formatProductionProduction vendor feedsAdvancedMultiple vendors / formats
Introduced at Pilot
Matching to your methods and rules✓✓✓
Planner approval✓✓✓
Comparability baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by format—✓✓
Escalation workflow in your tools—✓✓
Approved rule write-back—✓✓
Measurement-vendor integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-method planning rules——✓
Multi-stage planner approvals——✓
High plan volume——✓
Multi-vendor score controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your attention vendor list and feed formats→Vendor ingestion and method mappingWeek 1
02Representative scored plans→Matching baseline and method-tag bindingWeek 2
03Your planning rules and approval thresholds→Planning-rule and approval-boundary mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Vendor feed and ad-server assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Scores you would not want optimised to→Method cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no score may stand in for→Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named planning leads to review matches→Planner approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each band sits on the weeks the work occupies, so week 5 runs evaluation and pilot together.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Planning discovery, method mapping and the automation boundaryW2Vendor integration and the matching baselineW3Matching workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, guardrails and failure-mode testingW5Ad-server integration, pilot plans and targeted correctionsW6One planning cycle scored under the planning lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers only the weeks its work is named in — the week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The final checks clear on live buys and monitoring moves to Agent Care.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Advertising AI agent
Build an attention-measurement agent around your planning workflow.
Show us the attention vendors you use, how scores feed your planning, and who signs off on a plan change. You'll get every score tied to its method, applied inside your rules, and checked against the outcome it's meant to predict.
