A campaign report can leave the advertising interface as a spreadsheet, become a slide deck and later appear in a shared client folder. Access to the original account does not describe who can read those copies. A report-access review follows the information into the places where the team actually works.
The review should answer three practical questions: what reporting material exists, who can currently reach it and why that access is still needed. This is an internal operating method for ChatGPT advertising reports. The permission controls themselves belong to the dashboard, file service or collaboration system in use.
Inventory the delivery paths before the individual files
Start with recurring reporting workflows. List the dashboard used for analysis, the export location, the place where client-ready files are stored and the usual delivery mechanism. Include scheduled jobs or integrations that create copies. A file-by-file search without this map can miss the same uncontrolled destination every month.
Identify the owner of each location. The campaign analyst may own the report’s contents while someone else administers the shared folder. Both responsibilities matter. A reviewer who cannot change a permission still needs to know who can act on a finding.
Record which client or account scope each location is supposed to contain. A multi-client internal workspace has different boundaries from a client-specific delivery folder. Do not infer those boundaries solely from folder names; compare them with the agreed reporting workflow.
Ask what each recipient still needs
For named users, connect access to a current role or task. A former account manager, a short-term reviewer and the current client contact may all appear on the same list but have different reasons for being there. The review needs evidence of the current need, not a guess based on a familiar name.
Consider the level of permission as well as its presence. Someone who reads a finished report may not need to edit the underlying workbook. Someone who maintains a transformation may need broader access than a meeting participant. Select the appropriate supported permission in the actual system rather than inventing a universal set of roles.
Where the purpose is unclear, record an owner and a decision date. Avoid treating uncertainty as proof that access is either legitimate or unnecessary. The responsible person should resolve the question through the organization’s process, with the impact on ongoing work understood.
Follow group membership and shared links
A list of named users can look correct while a broad group or reusable link still grants access. Inspect those routes too. For a group, identify who controls membership and whether its current scope matches the reporting purpose. Do not assume that the group’s name describes every member accurately.
For a shared link, inspect the audience and capabilities the service actually reports. A link might be restricted to a defined group or might permit a wider audience. The review should record the observed setting, not use the word “private” without a clear meaning.
Check whether inherited permissions affect the result. A file can have a narrow direct sharing list and still inherit broader access from its location. Conversely, changing a parent location may affect many files. Review the actual consequences before applying an approved change.
| Access route | Useful review question |
|---|---|
| Named user | What current task requires this permission? |
| Group | Does present membership fit the report’s scope? |
| Shared link | Which audience and actions does the link allow? |
| Inherited access | What permissions arrive from the parent location? |
| Integration | What reporting task still requires this connection? |
Access has more than one route
- Person
Current task and appropriate permission level.
- Group
Actual membership and ownership of changes.
- Link
Permitted audience and available actions.
- Parent location
Permissions the file inherits from its location.
Distinguish shared access from existing copies
Removing a permission changes access through that route. It does not prove that a recipient has no previously downloaded copy. Keep that limitation explicit in the review record rather than describing a permission change as complete erasure of the information.
Apply the organization’s retention and handling decisions to historical reporting material. Some copies may need to remain available to a defined team, while others may no longer serve a purpose. The report archive guide addresses usable historical storage; it does not establish a universal retention period.
If the review finds unexpected sharing, preserve enough evidence to describe the observation and involve the responsible owner. Do not broaden access merely to let more people inspect the problem. The response should follow the actual exposure and the organization’s incident process.
Close with a verified permission state
Create a short action register containing the location, observed access, intended change, approving owner and verification method. Apply changes through the service’s normal authorized workflow. Then inspect the resulting settings and record what was confirmed.
Where practical, verify from an appropriate recipient context as well as the administrator’s view. A changed setting may not have the effect someone assumed. Do not claim that a former recipient was denied access unless that outcome was actually checked through a suitable method.
Connect findings to client-separation checks and trigger another review when a client engagement ends or the reporting workflow changes. OpenAI’s reporting documentation describes the campaign data source. The review here concerns the wider chain of copies, people and tools around it, where access can persist after the original task has ended.
Sources and scope
Inventory access to campaign exports, dashboards and shared links, then document which permissions should remain or change.
Working methods and examples are editorial suggestions. Check current platform requirements and available features before implementation.