Measuring it and operating it, answered in full.

No. It is this platform's own construct, computed by its own compilers, and there is no external body defining or auditing it. What makes it useful is not authority but consistency: the same function produces it for every channel and every brief, the rationale is published beside the number, and the scores are comparable across the seven because they answer the same question. Treat it as a disclosure rather than as a certification.

Mechanically yes, which is precisely why the numbers are traceable to code rather than to a marketing decision. The scores are literals in the channel compilers, and the ones that hurt — 40 on cinema, 50 on out-of-home, 55 on addressable TV — are the ones that make the 85 on CTV worth anything. A site that publishes only the flattering number has told a reader nothing about how the rest were arrived at.

No, and conflating the two is the misreading most likely to cost money. Fidelity measures how close the targeting is to your description of the audience. Performance depends on the creative, the offer, the medium's attention profile and the competitive context, none of which the score touches. Cinema scores lowest and can outperform a precisely targeted display campaign on the things cinema is good at.

Not on this platform, and the block is structural rather than a setting. Consequential calls fail closed unless the incoming request matches an approval a human granted for those exact bytes; spend runs against a mandate carrying an explicit money ceiling and an expiry; and enabling spend on a live line is a separately granted action that an approval alone cannot perform. Agents also cannot revoke or replace authority, close missions, or resolve approvals — those operations have no agent tool at all.

The costly failures are operational rather than editorial. The common one is a retried activation after an ambiguous supplier response, which produces two live campaigns spending in parallel. The others are an agent inheriting a human's session and approving its own work, an authority that never expires and is forgotten, and an approval granted for one action being spent on a different one. All four are prevented by design decisions rather than by prompting, which is why the questions worth asking of a vendor are infrastructural.

Less than you would expect, and that is the point of putting the controls in the product rather than in the prompt. The model extracts semantics, drafts creative, explains plans and proposes optimisations. It does not compute budgets — deterministic code does the arithmetic against adapter forecasts — and it never emits a vendor segment identifier, because registry tables do that. Where its output has consequences, a human approval bound to the exact action stands between the proposal and the money.

You can, and it does not produce the cap you set. Each platform enforces it within its own inventory only, so the aggregate exposure for a household appearing on several channels is the sum rather than the maximum. Setting four on seven channels permits up to twenty-eight. There is no configuration that fixes this from inside the platforms, because none of them can see the others.

It depends entirely on what stands between the agent and the money, and that is an architectural question rather than a question about the model. The things to establish: that the agent uses the same execution path as a human rather than a parallel one, that consequential operations are absent from its surface rather than merely discouraged, that authority carries an explicit ceiling and expiry, and that an ambiguous supplier response stops the run rather than being retried. Where those hold, the model's fallibility is contained by design rather than by prompting.