Work · Agency Operations Hub
Multi-account operations close from one controlled operating view.
A multi-account operating view built inside an employed operator role.
- Evidence
- Employed-operator capability evidence · delivered via AJC Groupe · not an Outproduce engagement
- Profile
- Multi-account operations · attribution boundary explicit
- Build stages
- 3
- Verified facts
- 3
Physical evidence
What exists today.
A multi-account operations dashboard built and used inside an employed operator role.
- Verification method
- Direct employed-role operation and current system records.
- Public media
- No public dashboard image. The surface contains client identities, access state, account economics, and active operating data.
- Evidence class
- Employed-operator capability evidence · delivered via AJC Groupe · not an Outproduce engagement
Architecture
How Agency Operations Hub carries the work.
Select a stage to see what it handles and what it passes forward.
Representative workflow model, not a measured client result
Before the system
- 01
Monthly close, unit economics, access, and account state needed one consistent operating view.
- 02
The system had to support operator decisions without exposing access indiscriminately.
- 03
Audit discipline mattered because the data represented multiple active accounts.
Build sequence
How the system was assembled.
- 01
Operating need
Built from direct day-to-day account-management requirements.
- 02
Dashboard system
Created the operating surface and close discipline.
- 03
Attribution boundary
Published only as employed-role capability evidence.
Verified
Facts attached to this record.
- Multi-account operations dashboard
- Monthly close and unit economics
- Access-control and audit patterns
Not claimed
Claims deliberately excluded.
- AJC clients as Outproduce clients
- Account ownership
- Client outcome metrics
- Outproduce revenue
Ownership after launch
Built and operated in an employed role. Not an Outproduce client engagement. Underlying clients and results are not claimed.
Evidence appendix
The named runs behind the numbers quoted elsewhere on this site.
Each entry is one read-only run. It states what was measured, on what date, and what the run does not establish.
- 01
Multi-account read-only audit
2026-08-06 · AJC Groupe, a partner business running the same system
A read-only pass over the connected Meta ad accounts. The report summary counted 47 connected accounts, 22 of which had spent money in the previous 7 days while 25 were dark. Seven-day spend was about EUR 6,318 once non-EUR spend was converted to euro. The 371 leads and the EUR 14.88 blended cost per lead describe only the roughly EUR 5,522 of that spend that was EUR-denominated, not the full EUR 6,318. The run also flagged about EUR 1,150 of spend with no leads attached and named 3 accounts whose best-performing engine was off while weaker ads kept spending.
- 47 connected accounts in the report summary, 22 spending in the previous 7 days, 25 dark
- About EUR 6,318 of seven-day spend, including converted non-EUR spend
- 371 leads at EUR 14.88 blended cost per lead, on about EUR 5,522 of EUR-denominated spend
- About EUR 1,150 of spend flagged with zero leads attached
- The summary account counts and the source table in the report are not fully reconciled, so they are a historical report figure rather than independent proof of current account coverage.
- The EUR 1,150 figure is an estimate inside the report. It is not money saved and not money recovered.
- No budget, bid or creative was changed by this run, and nothing here establishes that the flagged spend was recoverable.
- 02
Lead-journey reconciliation
2026-10-11 · AJC Groupe, a partner business running the same system
A read-only reconciliation of leads, call reports and cash-ledger rows for 23 September to 10 October. It found 113 active canonical leads, with all 110 previous campaign deal IDs present in the current CRM mirror, 101 canonical links and 9 records left unattributed because no exact normalised phone or email candidate existed. It also counted 129 post-call reports, 25 of them linked to a lead, and 47 cash-ledger rows with no link to a lead or a deal. The output a person can act on is the named exception list.
- 113 active canonical leads, 110 previous campaign deal IDs present in the CRM mirror
- 101 canonical links, 9 records unattributed and named individually
- 129 post-call reports, 25 linked to a lead
- 47 cash-ledger rows with no link to a lead or a deal
- Leads, call reports and cash-ledger rows are different record types. An unlinked cash row does not mean the work produced no sale.
- The run repaired nothing and changed no record, and no hours-saved figure is claimed from it.
- 03
Weekly ad account review, reconciled to the row
2026-10-12 · AJC Groupe, a partner business running the same system
A read-only weekly review of one live Meta account for 5 to 11 October: EUR 1,310.56 spent, 36 leads and a EUR 36.40 cost per lead, against EUR 26.77 per lead the previous week. The run enumerated 76 campaign ads and 147 daily insight rows, and the ad-level sums matched campaign and account spend and all 36 leads.
- EUR 1,310.56 spent for 5 to 11 October, 36 leads, EUR 36.40 cost per lead
- 76 campaign ads and 147 daily insight rows enumerated
- Previous week compared at EUR 26.77 per lead
- These are historical observations for one week on one account, not a trend and not a forecast.
- No ad, budget, CRM record or tracking setting was changed by the run.
- 04
Lead intake check that named its own gap
2026-10-12 · AJC Groupe, a partner business running the same system
Inside the same weekly review, the CRM side was compared against the ad platform for that week: 35 stored paid leads against 36 submissions recorded by Meta, with 15 booked. The one missing intake was reported rather than rounded away.
- 35 stored paid leads against 36 submissions recorded by Meta
- 15 of those leads booked
- 1 intake missing and reported as an exception
- These counts come from a saved handoff inside that review, not from a fresh live database verification performed during it.
- No lead was confirmed sold, and nothing here supports an inference about lead quality.
Start here
Show us the workflow.
Tell us what starts it, who owns the result, which tools carry it, and where it stalls. We will tell you whether it is ready to map.
The workflow repeats
One person owns the result
The records exist
Several tools carry the work