Six categories, named failures
Get a task, not a red dot. Tag manager configuration and security, consent and privacy, ecommerce schema, lead schema and runtime payload, with every check naming its remediation and its customer impact.
Trust Center
Check the data before you act on it
A tracking audit, a tracking plan with a live verdict, and anomaly investigations that reach a diagnosis. Findings queue as actions rather than filing as reports.
Key takeaway
Every analytics tool asks you to trust its numbers. This one asks you to check them. The audits, the contract verdict and the investigations all read the same monitor, so the page that grades your tracking cannot disagree with the page that reports your revenue.
Audits
An audit of the tracking you already have
Most tracking is broken in ways nobody notices for months, because the dashboard keeps drawing a line whatever the line is made of. These checks read your tag manager, your analytics configuration and the pages themselves, and say which specific thing is wrong.
Read from the systems you own
Audit the real thing rather than a sample. It reads your Google Tag Manager container, your Google Analytics configuration, a headless crawl of your own pages, and your first-party events once the SDK is live.
Locked, not failed
Stop chasing failures that are not failures. Checks needing first-party events render locked until events arrive, because a property without the SDK has not failed a check it could never run.
Scoped to your business model
Skip the checks that do not apply to you. Ecommerce checks are dropped entirely on a lead-generation property rather than counted as pending, because a purchase-funnel finding on a site with no purchases is noise dressed as rigour.
Contracts
A tracking plan that grades itself against reality
The tracking plan is normally a spreadsheet that was true the week it was written. Here it is a live document: every expected event, the vendor tags wired to it, and a verdict computed at read time from the monitor. It cannot drift from what data health shows, because it reads the same source.
One view, rooted on the event
Reconcile tags and events in one place instead of by eye. Each expected event shows the tags that should fire on it and what is actually observed.
The verdict is never stored
Trust the verdict because it is computed when you open the page. A stored verdict goes stale silently, and a tracking plan that lies is worse than no tracking plan at all.
Revision history
Answer "what changed" from the document rather than from memory. You see what the plan said last month and who changed it, which is the accountability artifact an agency can put in front of a client.
Data health underneath
Find out where your three sources disagree. Tracking quality signals, connector and webhook health and alerts, with an explorer you swap between TrustData, your analytics and your tags.
Investigations
An anomaly arrives with a diagnosis attached
The 30 to 60 minutes an analyst spends working out why ROAS moved is a checklist, and a checklist is worth automating. What is not worth automating is the decision at the end of it, which is why every verdict comes back to a human.
A confidence layer, stated
Know how much to trust the diagnosis before you act on it. Deterministic for a data fault, data-backed when internal evidence was found, contextual when internal causes were ruled out, labelled rather than blended into one confident paragraph.
It says when it is guessing
See when the investigation had nothing to go on. Each run records whether a known pattern matched or it fell back to reporting facts, because a confident narrative over no evidence is how every agent product fails.
Your verdict is the training signal
Correct it once and it stops making that mistake. You mark correct, partial or wrong and name the actual cause, and that correction is structured so the rulebook learns by cause category rather than from free text.
Follow-ups stay read-only
Ask a follow-up without worrying what it might touch. Extra checks run on a plain-text question, and anything that would change your account is refused by construction.
Where a finding goes next
The point of the evidence layer is that it does not end in a report.
Straight into the action queue
Audits and investigations feed Beacon's instrumentation silo, so a broken tag becomes a ranked recommendation with the finding as its evidence. Most stacks put the tool that finds the defect and the tool that queues the fix in different tabs, or different vendors.
Privacy posture
Consent handling, what is collected in each mode, and the governance view over it. Consent is the largest group of checks, because the most common tracking defect and the most common compliance defect are frequently the same defect.
Across every property
On a rollup lens the signals and the verdict aggregate over every property in the organisation, so an agency reads one program view rather than opening twelve accounts to find the one that broke.
FAQ
Direct answers.
The audit runs a fixed catalogue of checks, grouped by category. Tag manager configuration covers duplicate tags, overly broad triggers, whether tags declare their consent requirements, and whether the live container matches the latest version. Tag manager security covers the custom HTML ratio and related exposure. Consent and privacy is the largest group at eight checks. The rest cover ecommerce schema, lead schema and the runtime payload actually sent by your pages. Every check names its remediation and states the customer impact, because a finding without either is a red dot you learn to ignore.
Yes, and it is not sold separately. Lumen was the name for the audits and the anomaly investigations, and both live here as part of Trust Center on every tier. There is no separate line item and no per-property add-on for it. If you saw a price attached to Lumen anywhere, that is out of date and this page is correct.
An alert fires and produces one investigation. It runs a structured set of checks: data integrity first, because a tracking fault makes every downstream number meaningless, then parallel probes over spend, traffic, creative, funnel, campaign labelling and cross-platform reconciliation, then external context. The output is a diagnosis with a cause category and a confidence layer, plus a record of whether a known pattern matched or the run could only report facts. You then record a verdict, and on a wrong or partial one you name the real cause, which is what the rulebook learns from.
It queues. Audits and investigations feed the instrumentation silo in Beacon, so a defect arrives in the same ranked list as your paid and SEO work, with its evidence attached and its lifecycle tracked from planned to done to verified. This is the join worth having: in most stacks the tool that detects the broken tag has no way to make the fix compete for attention against everything else on your plate.
That is what it is for. The plan states every expected event and the vendor tags wired to it, the verdict is computed live from the monitor rather than stored, and the revision history shows what was agreed and when it changed. For an agency it is the artifact that turns "tracking is fine" into something a client can check. The client-facing read-only view is a later phase; today the plan, the verdict and the history are all in the product.
14-day free trial
Audit the tracking you already have
14-day free trial. The audits, the tracking contract and the investigations ship on every tier, including Measure.