Skip to content

Tracking & attribution engineeringClient work

Tracking Spec and QA for Your In-House Developer

I turn a tracking problem into a developer-ready event contract, test it against business records, and document what passes and what remains open.

For
Teams with a developer who needs a clear measurement spec
Checked

Sounds familiar?

Tick what applies to you

The situation Tracking & attribution engineering
The developer is ready to work. The requirement still says “fix tracking”.

Tick the lines that describe your case.

Describe my task

How I solve it

What I build

I build the specification and QA contract your developer works against. Each event has a trigger, an owner, required fields, identity rules, consent behaviour and a destination. I define what counts as evidence, review the implementation, and keep failures and untested paths visible. Your team keeps the code and the release decision.

Before a seasonal peak, my BFCM 2026 tracking readiness checklist gives your developer a schedule for tests, a tag freeze and checks during the peak.

The process

How it works

6 steps. Scope and a fixed price are agreed before the first one.

  1. Trace the agreed problem read-only, from a business record to the destination report.

  2. Write the event contract and name the source of truth for each action.

  3. Define identity, duplicate handling, consent states and expected failure behaviour.

  4. Give the developer fixtures and acceptance checks before coding starts.

  5. Review the implementation and test the permitted paths in an agreed test environment.

  6. Record passes, defects, untested paths and rollback steps in the handover.

Handover

What you get

  • A spec with a named owner and trigger for every scoped event.
  • Developer tasks with testable acceptance criteria.
  • A written QA verdict with evidence and open defects.
  • A handover your team can repeat after a checkout or application change.

Built with

  • An event specification
  • browser and server payload traces
  • synthetic fixtures
  • business-record reconciliation
  • a QA matrix
  • versioned change records
  • a rollback runbook

Proof

Done before, with dates and numbers

Client work Done for real clients. Client details are anonymised.

Before → after

For the marketplace, competing event counts became a documented contract tied to backend records, with change records and rollback. That did not make every path complete: acceptance was provisional and purchase instrumentation had not started. The headless-store work also included a developer-ready handover; I do not claim its dashboard is healthy today.

  • UK online marketplace

    canonical event and backend-truth contracts, change records and pre-cutover runbooks. Acceptance remained provisional; a dedup defect was open and purchase instrumentation had not started.

  • Headless Shopify retailer

    a developer handover for measurement and privacy controls, with a knowledge base and verification records. Current dashboard operation has not been re-checked.

What you can look at

The published marketplace event-contract case describes the contracts and their incomplete acceptance. For your handover, I produce a synthetic payload pair and a pass/fail matrix; no client payloads or account identifiers are reused.

Client work anonymised. The backing covers contracts, developer handover and QA; it does not imply every event path is accepted or every monitor is currently healthy.

Price and timeline

What it costs and how it runs

A Tracking Health Check is USD 395 for one agreed question. Ongoing spec ownership and QA can run through a Technical Partnership from USD 1,000 per month in an agreed area. I set the developer milestones and review dates in writing; delivery depends on the implementation schedule we agree together.

QuoteFixed before work starts

Price
Tracking Health Check USD 395 for one agreed diagnosis; Technical Partnership from USD 1,000 per month for ongoing specification and QA. Discussing the task is free.
Timeline
Health Check: written verdict two working days after kickoff and confirmed access. Developer milestones and QA dates are agreed before implementation.
First step
Describe the task. I reply within one working day, free, and tell you which option fits — or that you can fix it yourself.
Describe a task like this

A note from Daniilbefore you decide

When you don’t need this

If your team already has a measurement owner, a complete event contract and repeatable end-to-end checks, keep that process. If you need an implementation rather than a specification, I scope the build directly.

— Daniil

Questions

What people ask about this

Who writes the implementation?

Your developer can own it. I own the agreed measurement specification and its acceptance checks. If you need me to implement a part, that gets a separate scope.

What if the tag fires but the order is missing from the report?

That does not pass. The checks follow the business action through collection, delivery and the agreed destination, with timing and reporting limits recorded.

More like this

All situations
Daniil Maximkin

Hi, I’m Daniil.

I work with you from defining the problem to implementation and handover. You talk to the person who does the work. I work in English and Russian.

My story My work

Have a task like this?

Describe your task

The first answer is free, within one working day. Or write directly: next@taskfordaniel.com