MFA Exposure and Ad Policy Review for Publisher Domains

The question this answers: Whether a planner at an agency in Mexico City, or a trading desk in New York, can buy your inventory without writing a memo defending the decision. That is settled by supply-path data, your ads.txt and sellers.json chain, your ad-to-content ratio and where your sessions come from. It is not settled by how good the journalism is. Titles with real newsrooms land on buyer exclusion lists every quarter because of a reseller line nobody audited and a traffic partner somebody in growth signed off on two years ago. What gets examined: ads.txt and app-ads.txt line by line, every DIRECT claim checked against the seller's sellers.json entry and every RESELLER line traced to a live path. Confidential or missing sellers.json entries, which read to a buyer as an undisclosed intermediary. SupplyChain object completeness end to end. Ad density and layout against Better Ads Standards thresholds, measured on the templates that carry your traffic rather than on the homepage. Refresh behaviour and whether it is disclosed. The paid acquisition mix: content recommendation networks, push, social, and the share of sessions arriving with no brand intent. Invalid traffic signals through whichever of HUMAN, DoubleVerify or IAS you already run. Google Publisher Policies and Restricted flags in your Policy Center, and the AdSense or AdX account risk sitting behind them. What you receive: A signal-by-signal exposure report stating, for each, whether you pass, sit near a threshold, or fail, and what an automated buy-side screen sees when it looks at you. A remediation set ordered by what gets you off a blocklist fastest rather than by effort. And a one-page written rebuttal, sourced and dated, that your sales lead can send to a buyer who asked why your domain appeared on a list. That document is often what turns a dropped conversation back into a meeting. What I refuse: I will not help a site pass a screen it should fail. If a third of your sessions are bought from a content recommendation network and the ad-to-content ratio on your article template is over the line, that is the finding, and it goes in the document you paid for, in those words. I do not build subdomain structures, mirror domains or separate seller identities to move risky inventory away from a clean parent. I will not write a rebuttal around a claim I cannot source. Who this is not for: Arbitrage operators. If the model is buying traffic at a lower cost than the RPM the page earns, this review will tell you what you already know and you will resent paying for it. Also not for anyone who needs the report to reach a conclusion agreed before I look. Timing, honestly: Delisting and reinstatement are not on my schedule. Policy Center reviews take as long as they take, and the supply-path data vendors refresh on their own cadence, usually monthly. What I control is that the underlying problem is genuinely fixed and documented well enough that the next refresh finds a different site. Before we start I will tell you which findings are likely to clear within a cycle and which are structural and will take you two quarters. Access needed: Ad Manager and AdSense or AdX at policy-visibility level, analytics with acquisition sources unfiltered, the live ads.txt file and the name of whoever can commit to it, and a straight answer about every traffic source you buy. That last item is the whole engagement. A review built on a partial answer is worth nothing to you and I would rather not sell it.