Every live ad in evergreen trading is sorted on six axes: who is it for, what do they know, what does it argue, who carries it, what does it do, and what does it look like. Nothing else is a bucket. Anything more specific is a combination of those, which is why the list cannot grow without someone deciding to retire something.
The move each ad makes on the viewer: talks to them, shows them, teaches them, opens a box in front of them. Not what it argues and not how it looks, just what it does. Tap any i for what a lane counts as and, more usefully, what it does not. Spend-weighted, last 30 days. A lane can hold plenty of budget while every ad in it is months old, so the ageing badge matters as much as the bar.
Nothing at all in: Comparison, before & after · A story with beats · Not stated. These are not failures, they are untested. An absent lane leaves no trace in the data, which is exactly why the checklist is fixed rather than derived from what is already running.
Empty by choice: Reacting, replying. Parked for this brand with a reason on file, so they are not in the build list. Parking matters as much as the gap: it stops the report reading as a demand for twelve of everything.
Bars sit either side of the zero rule, so direction is position, not colour. A lane shrinking is not automatically bad. The two flags mark the cases worth a decision.
Whose voice or face the viewer thinks is talking to them: a real customer, the founder, a creator, an unseen narrator, or deliberately nobody at all. Tap any i for what each one counts as. Observed on its own evidence (the serving page, then labels, then copy) and never derived from the kind of ad, which is what made this a duplicate check in the old audit.
How polished or staged it feels as a piece of craft: shot on a phone, styled in a real room, a controlled studio, or made rather than shot. Kept separate from who is in it and what it does, so "founder talking head video" and "founder talking head UGC" differ on one value instead of being two permanent buckets.
Inferred, not recorded. Our ad names have no slot for persona or awareness stage, so these come from what each ad ARGUES, through a stated mapping in the client config with a reason on every rule, sourced to the persona doc. It is the weakest source we have: a tag written at launch would replace it outright. Read it as "this is who this creative is written at", not as who Meta delivered it to.
| Unaware | Problem-aware | Solution-aware | Product-aware | Most aware | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Forever-Home Curatorcore self-purchaser | 23.2% | 58.8% | 7.1% | 89.1% | ||
| The Considered Gift-Giverthe Q4 engine | 0 | |||||
| The Statement-Piece Investor£300+ anchor piece | 2.0% | 2.0% | ||||
| The Collector-Completerexisting customer, most aware | 1.5% |
Zero spend against The Considered Gift-Giver. Nothing in the account argues to this persona at all.
No creative at all for: Unaware. Coverage is a creative question, never a delivery one: the fix is to make that ad, never to build an audience or an ad set for it.
Darker is more spend. The empty cells are the build list, and they are read as cells, never as two separate axis counts: one gifting unboxing closes a gifting gap and an unboxing gap at once.
| Unboxing | Teaching | Compare | Proof | Reaction | Skit | List | To camera | Demo | Story | Showcase | Slice of life | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Press / PR / authority | ||||||||||||
| Social proof / testimonial | 5.1% | |||||||||||
| Founder / craft / origin story | ||||||||||||
| Features & benefits | 2.3% | 8.5% | 2.0% | |||||||||
| Problem, solution | ||||||||||||
| Education / how it works | 6.2% | |||||||||||
| Urgency / offer | ||||||||||||
| Identity / ritual / aspiration | 5.4% | 15.7% | ||||||||||
| Sensory / product desire | 6.7% | 31.5% |
This is a finding about our own labelling, not about the creative. Our ad names say who and how reliably; they say what the ad does about half the time, because the naming convention never had a slot for it. Tagging at launch is the fix; a one-off vision pass clears the back catalogue.
| Axis | Ads | Share of spend |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | 0 | 0.0% |
| Who carries it | 3 | 2.7% |
| What it looks like | 0 | 0.0% |
Persona and awareness stage are inferred from the argument for 92.7% of spend, and left blank for the rest. Inference is a stopgap, not an answer: it says who the creative is written at, which is a reasonable proxy but not the same as someone deciding at launch. Tagging at launch replaces it.
The emptiest cells under the arguments this account already spends on. Absent lanes get two to four shots, not one: at a roughly 5% winner rate a single ad cannot tell you whether the lane failed or the execution did.
| Argument | What it does | Live now |
|---|---|---|
| Sensory / product desire | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Sensory / product desire | A story with beats | nothing |
| Identity / ritual / aspiration | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Identity / ritual / aspiration | A story with beats | nothing |
| Features & benefits | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Features & benefits | A story with beats | nothing |
| Education / how it works | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Education / how it works | A story with beats | nothing |
| Social proof / testimonial | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Social proof / testimonial | A story with beats | nothing |
| Press / PR / authority | Comparison, before & after | nothing |
| Press / PR / authority | A story with beats | nothing |