When two contractors claim the same fortnight

Outdoor disputes in the Klang Valley often start as overlapping flight maps. The attribution table cannot settle a legal fight, but it can stop finance paying twice for one week of boards.

We are not a tribunal. If two outdoor contractors both invoiced the same stretch of road for the same week, that is a commercial dispute. What a credit study can do is refuse to assign the fortnight to both, and refuse to guess which board the shopper saw.

The method is unromantic. Ask for flight logs with dates and site codes. Stand them next to invoices. If a site cannot be shown as live, it goes to the unresolved line. If both logs show activity, we still assign the week only once in the credit table — usually to the channel line “outdoor,” not to a named contractor — and we put the overlap in the conflict log for the brand’s procurement team.

Digital agencies sometimes enjoy these weeks because last-click looks decisive by comparison. That is not a reason to hand the fortnight to search. It is a reason to keep outdoor as a single line with an asterisk until procurement finishes. Marketing attribution analytics that picks a contractor to flatter will not survive the next audit trail.

Bring photographs if you like. We still need the log. A photograph without a date is a mood, not a flight.