Start an affiliate budget audit by reconciling validated orders and costs. A high commission share for one partner type is a question to investigate, not proof of leakage or fraud. You need to know which orders were real, which were returned, what was paid and what the agreement allowed.
Work through the money before labeling the partner
Here is a fictional monthly example. Collected product revenue after discounts is $10,000. Full refunds total $1,000, leaving $9,000. Product cost is $4,500, fulfillment costs $900, commissions $600, network fees $180 and a placement fee $500. That leaves $2,320 before overhead and any other costs not included here.
The calculation is $9,000 minus $4,500 minus $900 minus $600 minus $180 minus $500. The placement fee belongs in the review even if the network dashboard does not include it. Because the starting revenue already reflects discounts, subtracting those discounts again would understate the result. These are teaching figures, not a client result or a profit benchmark.
The initial decision is to reconcile those cost lines and the refund treatment. It is too early to suspend a partner or claim the entire $2,320 was caused by affiliates. Contribution after selected costs and incremental contribution answer different questions.
Use order IDs to find actual discrepancies
Match network transaction records with your order system using order IDs, dates, currency and status. Check for duplicate transaction imports, cancellations left payable, partial refunds, currency differences and fixed fees stored outside the commission report. Preserve the underlying records and document any proposed adjustment.
An order credited in both analytics and the affiliate network is not automatically a duplicate payment. Those systems may describe the same sale under different attribution rules. Confirm the actual payable amounts and contractual treatment before calling it a billing error.
Keep attribution and a causal conclusion separate
Google Analytics describes attribution as assigning credit across touchpoints under a selected model. That helps explain why reports can disagree. An affiliate last-click report, a different analytics model and your finance ledger are not interchangeable totals.
Record the model, lookback window and reporting scope beside each figure. If a coupon partner appears late in the path, investigate the placement and shopper journey. Do not infer a particular level of pre-existing purchase intent from the partner category alone.
Replace universal thresholds with specific questions
There is no supported rule in this article that a 40% commission share, a 25% assisted-revenue share or a 95% purchase-intent estimate proves leakage. Ask a checkable question instead: were returned orders paid, was a placement fee omitted, or did a partner receive credit outside the agreed terms?
If the question is incrementality, plan an appropriate experiment with the people responsible for analytics, commercial terms and partner operations. Define the comparison, outcomes and limitations in advance. A two-week pause is not automatically enough evidence; seasonality, traffic volume and other promotions can change the result.
Leave the audit with one documented action
For the fictional example, the next action is to reconcile the $500 placement invoice and the $1,000 refunds against the network ledger before approving a revised contribution report. The owner is named, the required records are clear and the decision waits for that reconciliation.
Use the affiliate commission structures guide to document rates and validation terms. A useful audit ends with a verified discrepancy, a justified change or a clearly stated evidence gap. It should not end with a partner accusation built from a dashboard ratio.