Formula
What is included?
Check deductions, reversals, bonus treatment and whether the calculation uses placed or settled activity.
Problems We Solve · Conflicting KPIs
Conflicting KPIs.
Agree what the number means.
A useful discussion starts with a shared definition.
Finance, marketing and operations can all produce reasonable numbers from different rules. Gamblitude brings the data, Metrics and analytical context together so teams can reconcile those differences and work from definitions they understand.
Governed MetricsUseful reconciliationShared analytical context
The problem
When the KPI name hides a different calculation.
Conflicting KPIs occur when teams use the same label for measures with different definitions or reporting scopes. NGR may include different deductions. An active player may mean someone who logged in, deposited or placed a settled bet. Both reports can be internally consistent while answering different questions.
The consequence is familiar: a business review turns into a search for the spreadsheet behind each number. Analysts reproduce calculations, teams defend their preferred view, and the decision waits. A shared analytical foundation makes the rules visible and gives colleagues a common basis for comparison.
Population
Who is counted?
Compare brands, markets, player status, eligible events and the treatment of test accounts.
Time
Which period is complete?
Align time zones, reporting windows, source refresh times and the handling of late adjustments.
In practice
Three disagreements worth resolving.
These illustrative investigations show how to separate a change in the business from a change in the calculation.
Illustrative investigation · 01 / NGR
Explain the €7,000 difference.
- Shared starting point
- €100,000 GGR
- Marketing view
- €90,000 after €10,000 bonuses
- Finance view
- €83,000 after another €5,000 revenue share and €2,000 payment fees
Both teams start with the same activity and period. Their €7,000 gap comes from two additional cost components.
Create clearly named Metrics for these illustrative definitions and compare the components by brand and market. A campaign discussion can use the marketing view; a contribution review can use the finance view. The reconciliation explains how the two relate.
Illustrative investigation · 02 / Active players
Separate engagement from the reporting window.
- Question
- Why did the weekly active-player count change?
- Compare
- Qualifying events, seven-day window, brands and refresh times
One dashboard counts players with a login during a rolling week. Another counts players with a bet or spin during the calendar week. Align the window first, then compare the qualifying populations.
Define login-active and betting-active measures separately. Use player Attributes and Segments to examine the difference, and choose the measure appropriate to the operational review. A change in population becomes a question the team can investigate.
Illustrative investigation · 03 / Acquisition
Reconcile €40 CPA with €50 CPA.
- Same spend
- €6,000, same currency and campaign window
- Platform view
- 150 reported conversions → €40 each
- Internal view
- 120 qualifying first depositors → €50 each
The denominators explain the gap. Reconcile attribution windows, qualifying first-deposit rules, duplicate events and reversals before changing the budget.
Keep platform-reported conversion cost for channel reconciliation and qualifying-FTD acquisition cost for the relevant commercial review. Break the difference down by campaign and market, then take unresolved records back to the source owner.
Questions and follow-through
Give each AI workflow a clear job.
AI Agent / You ask
Investigate the difference.
Ask which brands and cost components explain the gap between two named Metrics. Follow up on the comparison period, filters and supporting breakdowns.
Insight Radar / You schedule
Repeat the agreed check.
Define a recurring review of the selected measures, such as comparing campaign-reported and qualifying first deposits each week. Choose the scope and schedule.
Reports / You brief
Make the reconciliation reusable.
Prepare a report with the agreed measures, component breakdowns and commentary. Run it on demand or schedule it for the business review.
Autonomous Agent / It investigates
Discover another useful question.
Autonomous Agent initiates its own investigations and brings findings for review. Included in BI pricing, it complements the checks your team already knows to ask.
A practical starting point
Bring the reports that disagree.
Choose a consequential disagreement.
Select two reports used for the same decision. Bring their definitions, source context and an overlapping reporting period.
Reconcile the components.
Separate formula differences from filters, data coverage and timing. Use a representative sample to check the totals against their source records.
Agree ownership and use.
Name the useful measures, identify who approves their business meaning and decide which meetings or workflows should use each one.
Validate the working views.
Compare a Dashboard, an AI question and a report using the same scope. Evaluate whether colleagues can explain both the number and its relationship to the alternatives.
Freshness follows the availability and processing schedule of each connected source. Include those timings in the reconciliation.
Questions, answered
Make the next discussion more useful.
Why do iGaming teams get different answers for the same KPI?
The name can hide different rules. Two NGR calculations may deduct different costs; two active-player counts may use different events, periods or brands. Source update times, settlement adjustments and currency conversion can also change the result. Start by comparing the definition and reporting scope before deciding that either number is wrong.
Do all departments need one identical NGR definition?
They need agreed definitions with clear purposes. A marketing contribution measure and a finance measure can both be useful if their deductions and uses are explicit. Give them distinct names, share the underlying components and show the reconciliation. Teams can then choose the appropriate measure for a decision without silently changing its meaning.
How does Gamblitude keep dashboards and AI aligned?
Metrics and Attributes are defined centrally and reused across Dashboards, Segments, Reports, Player Profiles and AI. Teams can inspect the relevant calculations and filters, then compare results for the same data scope and period. This gives a dashboard view and an AI Agent conversation a shared analytical basis.
Can we retain our existing reports during the transition?
Yes. Begin with a small set of contested measures and compare the current reports with Gamblitude over the same period. Reconcile differences, agree the useful definitions and decide which views each team will use. This gives finance, operational and analytical owners a practical way to validate the transition before broadening the scope.
Does resolving KPI conflicts require predictive models?
The starting point is connected data, agreed definitions and consistent analytical access. AI Agent, Insight Radar and Reports help teams examine and communicate the numbers; Autonomous Agent can initiate further investigations and is included in BI pricing. Predictive Models support separate forecasting or scoring use cases and are individually scoped and quoted.
Start with your operation
Bring two numbers that should agree.
Show us the reports, definitions and decision behind the disagreement. We will explore the data and analytical setup needed to give your teams a shared basis for the discussion.