Fidelity scores and lawful basis, answered in full.

No, and at most budgets you should not. A broad seven-channel plan at £2,000 a month is operationally and statistically weak, and spreading a small budget across every channel is the fastest way to make none of them measurable. Two or three channels with enough weight to prove something is the shape that works. The plan generator funds the lines the budget can actually carry rather than putting a token line on every channel.

A record, attached to every compiled channel plan, of which data made that targeting lawful: the provider of each segment, the basis it relies on — consent-chained, legitimate interest, or outside scope entirely — and the warnings raised while compiling it. It exists so that the answer to "where did this audience come from?" is a document rather than a conversation, and so that a DPO reviewing a campaign is reading the same record the compiler acted on.

The table. The language model extracts semantics from your brief: what kind of person, what interests, what geography, what intent. Deterministic registry code then matches those semantics against catalogue keywords and emits known segment identifiers. The model never freehands a vendor id, which is why a compiled plan can be audited line by line and why a hallucinated segment cannot reach a buy.

No. The examples shown on each channel page are drawn from the sandbox-scale slices we ship with, which are real taxonomies at reduced size — the AdSmart attribute catalogue, the Vistar and Bombora taxonomies, an IAB Audience Taxonomy 1.1 slice, DCM packs, Acorn and Mosaic tables. The full exports load into the same shapes, so catalogue size changes neither the compiler behaviour nor the fidelity grade. No catalogue here has yet been loaded for a live campaign, because none has run.