Industry playbook · published
Foundation Repair: Inspection Attribution
A practical inspection attribution playbook for foundation repair teams: page structure, evidence, measurement, QA, and implementation boundaries.
Reviewed 2026-07-20 · National guidance, Austin proofThe task and the failure mode
Built for: Foundation repair teams measuring inspection requests, scheduled visits, completed assessments, proposals, and accepted work.
A request form does not show whether a property is serviceable, whether the inspection occurred, or whether an engineering referral was needed. The gap encourages marketing to optimize for the wrong event.
Workflow
- 01Define request, contacted, serviceable, scheduled, inspected, proposed, and accepted stages.
- 02Capture landing route and campaign context without property addresses in analytics.
- 03Pass a non-personal source token into dispatch or CRM where feasible.
- 04Reconcile form, call, scheduling, and inspection records in restricted systems.
- 05Report qualification and completion by route family, service category, and aggregate market.
Evidence to retain
- A stage dictionary approved by operations and sales.
- QA records for web forms, phone calls, and scheduler handoffs.
- A discrepancy view for requests without corresponding operational records.
- Privacy rules that keep address and condition details out of browser analytics.
Release checklist
- Separate engineering referrals.
- Record outside-area requests.
- Deduplicate spouse or repeat contacts.
- Test call and form attribution.
- Audit source-field overwrite behavior.
- Review accepted-work lag before judging a cohort.
Boundaries and caveats
Sales cycles can extend beyond the reporting window.
Property condition details may be sensitive and should stay in approved operational tools.
Primary sources
- Google Analytics: About key eventssupport.google.com
- Google Analytics: Collect campaign data with custom URLssupport.google.com
- Google Search Console performance reportingsupport.google.com