Law Firm Agents
Google AdsProposed workflow

Review marketing-account access before a handover

Inventory observed access, dependencies and missing handover evidence.

Tools for the documented steps

These products support separate steps. Their presence does not imply a tested connection or endorsement.

Practice relevance

Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.

The problem

Inventory observed access, dependencies and missing handover evidence.

Why it matters: An agency handover can stall when the firm cannot identify who controls an account or what depends on it. A read-only access inventory gives the owner a concrete review list without assuming that an admin role proves legal ownership.

Sources & evidence

Proposed / not tested. The public source describes the problem. Documentation supports only the stated method components; no result from this recipe has been verified.

What’s been verified

Source methods and reported problems have been reviewed. We have not run the adapted workflow. The sample below describes expected behavior on synthetic data, not a customer result.

What to measure: In a synthetic pilot, count correctly found exceptions, false alarms, and unresolved inputs. No time or cost saving is assumed.

Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain accounts are self-reported. Documentation supports components; this adapted recipe and prompt have not been tested. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.

Suggested approach

Start when: Agency renewal/change or quarterly audit

  1. inventory account IDs, actual owner/admin roles, billing owner, exports, domain/hosting/tracking dependencies
  2. Keep source references and report unknowns instead of filling gaps.
  3. The responsible reviewer checks the report before any separately approved action.

Limits and review

The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.

Who reviews it: No credential sharing, ownership takeover or permission changes without explicit authorization. Administrative access is not proof of legal ownership.

What you need

Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

  • Existing authorized access to the correct source account and records; no new login, credentials, installation or permission grant is included.
  • Responsible lawyer/operations reviewer approves scope, definitions and any later action.
  • AI optional; use only approved minimized data and retain originals separately.
  • Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.

How to use

Documentation-checked component path; proposed workflow, not tested

Before you start
  • Verified Google-side paths do not verify other vendors. Legal ownership and portability require contractual evidence.
Check access and setup
  • The live account, entitlement, exact headers, records and field coverage have not been observed.

  1. Read platform-specific access screens

    Google Ads / LSA / GBP / GA4 / GTM · Ads/LSA: Admin > Access and security; GBP: More > Business Profile settings > People and access; GA4: Admin > Account/Property access management; GTM: Admin > Account and Container > User Management

    Capture current account/property/container IDs, firm/agency role aliases, pending invites and relevant inherited manager relationships without changing anything. Separately note the paying entity from permitted billing records, omitting payment/tax details.

    Expected output
    Platform-specific dated control evidence.
    Next step
    Use the approved asset roster to mark which assets were inspected and which remain unknown.
    Check before continuing
    Access is not legal ownership. GA4/GTM account and property/container permissions differ; a payment role does not prove asset control.
    Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗Step documentation 3 ↗Step documentation 4 ↗Step documentation 5 ↗

  2. Make the checked, minimized handoff

    Excel / source-record reviewer · Restricted original workbook > separate analysis workbook > Scope worksheet

    Human records each asset and source screenshot. For domain, hosting, tracking numbers, Meta or any other provider, obtain that actual provider’s read-only control evidence and official instructions first. No generic Google menu is substituted. Keep untouched original exports/screenshots and the identifying source map in restricted firm storage. Build a separate minimized analysis file; do not hide raw client data on another tab. Include the complete Scope/coverage note in the AI-visible workbook or prompt. Use aliases and administrative metadata only. Unknown is not zero, false, completed or absent.

    Expected output
    Assets(asset_alias,platform,scope_id_alias,firm_role,agency_role,billing_entity_alias,contract_ref,access_evidence_ref,coverage); Contracts(asset_alias,approved_ownership_summary,evidence_ref,coverage), containing only staff-approved nonconfidential summaries, not confidential agreements.
    Next step
    Format each approved range as a named table. Carry source-row references and coverage into the analysis workbook.
    Check before continuing
    Every field has an observed source or an explicit missing reason; staff assignments are marked editorial, not native.
    Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗

  3. Ask AI to inspect the checked inputs

    Excel Copilot, optional · Analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only

    Open the minimized workbook containing the named tables and Scope. Paste the exact prompt; if unavailable, perform the same rule checks manually.

    Expected output
    Evidence-linked control inventory and draft questions.
    Next step
    Copy checked results into a new Review sheet, retaining source references and unresolved blockers.
    Check before continuing
    Every claim has a dated platform/contract source; absent access is not proof the agency owns an asset.
    Step documentation 1 ↗

  4. Human review and final action

    Final human review

    Responsible firm reviewer · Internal Review worksheet / review document

    Firm owner reviews asset completeness and contract interpretation. Save the inventory and decide what information to request from the agency.

    Expected output
    Reviewed handover checklist.
    Next step
    Any external request, transfer, user invitation/removal or credential operation is separately authorized.
    Check before continuing
    No passwords, tokens, payment details or private keys are collected.
    Step documentation 1 ↗Step documentation 2 ↗Step documentation 3 ↗

What you’ll get

handover-inventory.csv: asset_id, observed_control, evidence_refs, missing_access_evidence, dependency_gaps, draft_request, reviewer_status

Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result

Input files

  • assets.csv: asset_id, platform, account_alias, expected_firm_role, dependency_asset_ids
  • access-evidence.csv: evidence_id, asset_id, principal_alias, organization_role, platform_role, observed_at, source_ref
  • contract-excerpts.csv: excerpt_id, asset_id, excerpt_text, source_ref; scope.txt: as-of time, approved asset roster, coverage and access-role definitions

Synthetic example

Synthetic inputs are included in the starter kit.
assets-example.csv
access-evidence-example.csv
contract-excerpts-example.csv
handover-inventory-example.csv
scope-example.txt

Expected output

AS1 has observed firm admin access, AS2 observed agency admin access, and AS3 unknown access. AS1 depends on AS2. No conclusion about legal ownership and no access changes.

Test a failure

No credential sharing, ownership takeover or permission changes without explicit authorization. Administrative access is not proof of legal ownership.

Try with the sample files

Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.

Download inputs and checklist 19 files

Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.

Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs

Prepared-input review prompt with Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files

Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.

Read original method Read pain evidence

Published by Law Firm Agents. These are source-linked editorial adaptations; no end-to-end execution is claimed. Read the plain-text version.