A dealer runs a solid campaign, files the claim, and it comes back rejected. Not because the campaign was bad, but because the proof did not hold up. The invoice was there but not the ad itself. The screenshot had no date. The photo could have been from any event, any year. The work was real. The evidence was not enough.
Proof of performance is where most co-op claims live or die, and it fails more often on form than on substance. Knowing what actually counts is half of getting paid.
Why claims fail on evidence
A claim is not a story, it is a case. The brand reviewer was not there. All they have is what the dealer submits, and they have to be able to confirm, from that alone, that the approved campaign actually ran the way it was supposed to.
When evidence is thin, the reviewer cannot confirm it, so they cannot pay it. That is not the brand being difficult. It is the brand being unable to verify a claim from what they were handed.
What good evidence looks like
Strong proof answers the questions a reviewer is going to ask before they ask them. For most claims that means several things together, not one:
- The invoice, showing what was bought and what it cost
- The actual creative, the ad or post or spot as it ran, not just a line item describing it
- Proof it ran, a dated screenshot, a tear sheet, a link, a photo from the event
- The brand shown correctly, since a reviewer checking compliance needs to see the logo and message were right
- A date on everything, because undated evidence proves the spend but not the timing
One invoice on its own proves you paid for something. It does not prove the something ran, ran when it should have, or looked the way it was approved to look. That gap is where claims stall.
Capture beats reconstruction
The other half is when the evidence is gathered. Proof collected while the campaign is live is complete and accurate. Proof assembled months later, from memory and scattered folders, has holes, and the holes are exactly what a reviewer catches.
The dealers who get paid cleanly are almost always the ones who capture as they go. A screenshot the day the ad runs. Event photos the night of the event. The invoice filed with the creative attached, not in a separate pile.
Sizle is built around this with an evidence gallery that keeps the creative, the proof, and the timestamps together, with compliance checks against brand guidelines, so a claim arrives as a complete case instead of a pile to sort. The habit is what matters most, though. Capture the proof while it exists, in a form someone who was not there can verify.
Before you file, look at your evidence the way the reviewer will, as a stranger who has to confirm the whole campaign from what is in front of them. If you can, it pays. If you have to explain the gaps, it is going to stall, and the fix was capturing them weeks ago.