Using the guides, answered in full.

About the channels and the methods, with AdBuyMCP as the worked example. Each guide is written so that a buyer using a different platform, an agency or a sales house directly still gets the useful part: what an audience pack is, why a power calculation has to happen before the flight, what a venue type claims and what it does not. Where the product's own behaviour is the point — an empty screen ranking, a refusal to report an underpowered lift — the guide says which behaviour belongs to this platform rather than to the channel.

Three places, and every guide names its own at the foot of the page. Figures this site already publishes elsewhere — fidelity scores, plan floors, the fee, supply grades — are quoted from the data module that owns them rather than restated. Mechanisms are read off our code, which is the authority whenever our README disagrees with it. And market facts such as cinema rate structures and clearance costs come from our own research reports, which were compiled in August 2026 with inline citations to the sales houses' published material, so they are written as a dated survey rather than as a standing fact.

No, and that would be the more flattering answer. AdBuyMCP has not spent money through a live rail, has no case studies and has produced no causal result. What these guides describe is how the channels work, what our code does, and where its limits are. Any number that looks like a campaign outcome would be deterministic sandbox output, and none is printed here for that reason.

Yes, and that is the intent. Nothing in them requires us: the geo-lift arithmetic works in a spreadsheet, the cinema calendar applies whoever books it, and the questions to ask an agent-operated media platform are worth asking of any vendor including this one. If a guide is only useful to somebody who has already bought the software, it has been written badly.