Check who is authorized to sell the advertised inventory

Define the inventory and transaction identifiers

Record the publisher domain or app identity, exchange, seller account and relevant deal identifier. Preserve exact identifiers rather than relying on friendly names, which can be duplicated or changed. Establish the inventory type so the reviewer knows whether web or app authorization evidence is relevant.

Choose a representative set of proposed or delivered supply paths and record the review date. A sample review does not establish that every impression followed the same path. Ask the platform owner what inventory-level evidence is available without exposing customer identifiers or collecting unnecessary user-level bid data.

Match authorization with seller identity

IAB Tech Lab describes ads.txt and app-ads.txt as public declarations of authorized sellers. Its sellers.json documentation describes identifying selling entities and using the SupplyChain object to understand intermediaries. These standards answer related but different questions about the selling relationship.

Compare the relevant records and note missing, inconsistent or stale information. Do not infer authorization from a matching company name alone. Where interpretation requires technical expertise, have the buying platform or supply specialist explain the exact account mapping and the evidence supporting it. Preserve the unresolved status until that explanation is checked.

Separate a documentation gap from a proven allegation

A missing or inconsistent record can justify withholding approval or requesting clarification under the buyer’s policy. It does not by itself prove intentional fraud. Check publication timing, account migrations and whether the evidence was retrieved from the correct official domain or app developer relationship.

Keep any proposed remedy within authorization. Do not disable seller validation, bypass a security warning or accept an opaque path merely to restore delivery. Escalate with the identifiers, observed discrepancy and requested clarification. Avoid publishing accusations or sharing sensitive transaction data beyond the approved review participants.

Keep quality and value checks separate

After authorization is established, assess whether the supply path fits the approved buying strategy and commercial terms. Ask about intermediary roles and costs where the buyer has access to that information. More direct access may be desirable for a particular plan, but seller-count reduction alone does not establish better outcomes.

Retain independent checks for brand suitability, invalid traffic, viewability, delivery and business effectiveness. Record the evidence date and a review trigger for seller or domain changes. The final recommendation should state what was verified and what remains outside the scope of the authorization review.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A hypothetical placement report names Publisher A and seller account 123. The publisher’s authorization file lists a different account for that exchange, while the seller’s identity record describes an intermediary. The mismatch needs explanation before the path is approved; it is not yet proof of counterfeit inventory.

Keep the path unresolved until the account relationship is explained and checked. Apply the buyer’s authorized controls without turning a documentation gap into an unsupported allegation.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Inventory

   Which verified domain or app is represented?

2. Account

   What exact seller and exchange identifiers apply?

3. Evidence

   Do authorization and seller identity records agree?

4. Gap

   Who can explain an inconsistency without weakening controls?

5. Scope

   Which quality and effectiveness questions remain separate?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Treating a publisher label as authorization evidence.
• Confusing seller identity with publisher permission.
• Calling every missing record deliberate fraud.
• Treating authorization as proof of viewability or business value.

Sources & scope

Frameworks, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial synthesis. Linked primary sources support only the stated concepts. Source checking is not an independent audit of effectiveness. No named human author or reviewer is claimed.

• IAB Tech Lab: Authorized Digital Sellers with ads.txt and app-ads.txt →Primary technical documentation · Supports: Explains public declarations of authorized inventory sellers and the app-specific extension. Authorization transparency does not establish attention, suitability, incremental sales or the absence of all fraud.
• IAB Tech Lab: Sellers.json Supply Chain Transparency →Primary technical documentation · Supports: Explains seller identity discovery and the role of the OpenRTB SupplyChain object. The review worksheet is original analysis; a visible seller chain is not a complete quality guarantee.