Agentic Commerce & Protocols.
AdCP, MCP, and A2A read as commercial infrastructure: the wire formats, handshakes, and deal loops buyer and seller agents need before either can transact.
The canonical first-read.
AdCP: The Open Standard for Agentic Advertising
Connect once. Operate anywhere.
Read essay →- 01Sep 2026
The Layer That Didn't Ship
In 2025 the industry agreed it needed a shared layer for exchanging user context between agents, LiveRamp proposed one, donated it to IAB Tech Lab in late 2025, and it was renamed Agentic Audiences by early 2026 and filed under AAMP. Read at the repository rather than the press release, that layer has eleven commits since its creation in October 2025, no releases and no tags, two pull requests still open, a spec still headed Draft v0.1, and a wire format string that still carries the retired name. Its one working integration — the OpenRTB community extension on Segment.ext.aa and the Prebid.js RTD module — shipped inside a four-week window between March 22 and April 14, 2026 and has had nothing added since. Meanwhile the job got done twice somewhere else: AdCP's Trusted Match carries contextual embeddings at serve time against a 50ms provider timeout inside the router's latency budget, and AAMP's in-bidstream runtime ARTF reached v1.0 on July 20, 2026 with gRPC bid mutations under tmax. Neither references the other's embedding vocabulary. The mechanism is not a governance failure, it is a latency budget: an embedding is only worth carrying if it arrives before the auction closes, so every decision about dimensions, quantisation and timeout behaviour is a property of a runtime, and whoever holds the clock ends up holding the vocabulary. A neutral layer donated to a standards body is not the same thing as a layer that ships. The general test, applied here to AdCP as well, is commits, tagged releases and whether the one integration that exists is still maintained — and it closes with a checkable prediction about what would prove Agentic Audiences is maintained rather than parked.
- 02Sep 2026
The Evidence Premium
Season 2's sixth poll asked what wins the bid when every seller can claim performance, and 37 ballots put Verifiable outcomes on top with 54%. Lowest price took 21%, Proprietary data 13%, Exclusive supply 10%. The finding isn't the winner, it's the comparison: seven days earlier the same room priced verifying results at 21% when it appeared as a job an intermediary does, and the identical idea took two and a half times the support once it was worded as a property of the offer. Sold as a service, proof polls like overhead. Built into the offer, it wins the bid. The week's term is the Evidence Premium: the price gap between a claim a buyer has to take on faith and the same claim carrying proof the buyer's own side would accept. It is not collected by whoever has the best number, it goes to whoever can produce a number the counterparty accepts without reopening the negotiation, and almost no seller holds that arrangement. The accreditation layer already built this machinery one layer down — research proves a method is valid, accreditation proves a number is transactable — and the MRC's annual audit clock says the premium is a subscription rather than a purchase. Nothing accredits an agent-generated claim yet, which is why the 21% who picked price are reading the next two years correctly. My vote went to Verifiable outcomes, with an interest to declare and a concession about who ends up funding the check.
- 03Sep 2026
The Risk Residue
Season 2's fifth poll asked which intermediary function stays valuable once agents transact directly, and 19 ballots put Assuming risk on top with 42%. Finding counterparties and Verifying results tied at 21%. Negotiating price finished last at 16% — one week after a third of the room called price the hardest thing agents will negotiate. That gap is the essay: hard and worth paying a middleman for are different properties. The week's term is the Risk Residue. Strip the information work out of intermediation — the finding, the matching, the price discovery — and software does all of it at zero marginal cost. What is left is balance-sheet work, because software cannot absorb a loss. Absorbing a loss needs capital, a legal person to hold it, reserves priced against the miss, and an incentive not to lie about all three. The intermediary of the agent era looks less like a marketplace with better matching and more like a small clearinghouse: escrow, guarantee, spread. Verification is the interesting near-miss — scarce only while it stays independent, because an agent employed by one side of the trade cannot check the other side's numbers. My vote went to Assuming risk, and I changed it mid-week from Negotiating price, which is the argument this essay has with itself.
- 04Aug 2026
Negotiating the Nouns
Season 2's fourth poll asked what buyer and seller agents will negotiate hardest, and 55 ballots produced the tightest finish of the season: Success criteria at 34%, Price at 32%, Audience definitions and Liability at 16% each. Read as a block, two-thirds of the room said the hardest negotiation is no longer the number — it's the nouns around the number. That's the week's term: Negotiating the Nouns. Automated negotiation is mostly semantic negotiation wearing a price tag. Price is the one term on the ballot machines already clear — fifteen years of real-time auctions settled it to the millisecond — and it stayed easy only because every other term was held still by convention: the audience was a list name on an insertion order, success was handled at the QBR, liability was boilerplate nobody read. An agent can't execute ambiguity. Every term has to parse before a dollar moves, so the negotiation migrates from the price line into the definitions — what counts, whose count settles it, over what window, against what baseline. My vote went to Success criteria, and it won by two points; the 32% who picked Price weren't wrong either, because every noun left unsettled eventually presents its invoice as a price dispute.
- 05Aug 2026
Nobody Sells an Outcome
Season 2's third poll asked what autonomous buying agents will ultimately buy, and 73 ballots produced the clearest majority of the season: Outcomes at 57%, with Impressions at 27%, Audiences at 8%, Attention at 6%. The room voted for the one unit on the list that nobody can currently sell, because selling an outcome means warranting it, and warranting it means pricing the failure case. That pricing function — Outcome Underwriting — is the institution the whole result quietly depends on: a definition both sides accept, a measurement both sides trust, a settlement window, and someone who pays when the outcome doesn't happen. The first three are measurement work. The fourth is capital. Outcome optimization exists inside the walled gardens; outcome insurance does not. Owned loops reprice faster and sometimes carry action-level variance, but no scaled platform guarantees the advertiser's business result. My vote went to Outcomes anyway — for where the market ends, not for what's tradable now — and the 27% who voted Impressions weren't nostalgic; they named the only unit with a working settlement stack, which is why it gets demoted to the receipt rather than killed.
- 06Jul 2026
AdCP vs AAMP: The Retrofit and the Greenfield
Two agentic advertising standards shipped within 48 hours of each other in late July — AdCP tagged v3.1.8, IAB Tech Lab announced AAMP 2.3. The trade press calls it a war and mislabels the battlefield. Read at the repository level, the real difference isn't altitude (both negotiate deals; both touch the impression path). It's ancestry: AAMP retrofits agents onto advertising's existing rails — OpenDirect, OpenRTB, the ad servers and DSPs already in production — while AdCP writes a new campaign-lifecycle protocol with trust in the wire format. Every claim verified against the repos and specs, both directions, with the press-release-vs-repository deltas printed for each side.
- 07Jul 2026
The One Standard That Clears the Deal
Season 1's last poll asks which standard matters most in five years: Identity, Measurement, Agent Protocols, or Trust & Accountability. This essay's answer: three of the four only reduce friction — a market can run without them, just more slowly and at more risk. Only one clears or blocks the transaction outright. That's the test that actually separates a standard from infrastructure, and it's independent of which option the room eventually picks.
- 08Jul 2026
Measurement for Agentic Commerce
The agent doesn't click, doesn't see ads, and buys anyway. A breaks/survives/emerges triage of commerce measurement, and the instrumentation to build now.
- 09Jul 2026
The Prebid Sales Agent: AdCP's Sell Side Lands in the Wrapper
AdCP's sell side is a deal machine beside the wrapper, not inside it — the architecture, the deal loop, five publisher decisions, the caveats nobody prints.
- 10Jul 2026
When the Buyer's Agent Meets the Seller's Agent
A natural-language brief in Claude became live CTV spend through a protocol handshake. Ten surfaces are becoming agentic counterparties — but autonomy and interoperability are inversely correlated, so far, and the consolidation ledger shows exactly what agents are hungry for.
- 11Jun 2026
Do We Still Need Standards When Machines Understand Context?
The crowd voted 'more than ever' — but the real question isn't whether AI kills standards. It's which standards survive when meaning goes to zero and accountability becomes the scarce thing.
- 12Jun 2026
Notes from the Implementer Seat
What running a live AdCP signals agent teaches you that reading the spec never will. Revised September 2026: a privacy gap I filed against Trusted Match shipped in AdCP v3.1.22 — on stricter terms than I proposed, in a maintainer PR rather than mine — and two threads listed here as open proposals have since closed as completed.
- 13Jun 2026
Signal Containerization: The Next Abstraction Layer for Agentic Advertising
A framework for packaging buyer intent, semantic meaning, provenance, privacy policy, activation rules, and measurement logic into executable advertising signal containers.
- 14Mar 2026
Agentic Advertising Protocols: A Unified Map of What's Next
Ad tech's standards run in silos, and the Agentic Era makes that gap impossible to ignore — a map of how OpenRTB, AdCOM, OpenDirect, Deals API and GPP each extend into the agentic stack. Revised September 2026: the layer this map named UCP had already been donated to IAB Tech Lab and renamed Agentic Audiences before publication, the roadmap belongs to one body of two now in open conflict, and the serve-time matching job the map reserved for a separate layer now runs inside AdCP's Trusted Match.
- 15Feb 2026
AI Agents in Ads need a "Common Language"
Vector alignment as practical infrastructure — projectors, capability discovery, and the handshake between buyer and seller agents.
- 16Feb 2026
The Missing Link in Ad Tech: How UCP & AdCP Are Finally Unifying the "Alphabet Soup"
How UCP and AdCP retire ad-tech's "Tower of Babel" — Architect (intent) and Engineer (math) of the agentic stack.
- 17Apr 2025
MCP. A2A. OMG. The New ABCs of Advertising AI
Model Context Protocol meets Agent-to-Agent. How AIs talk to tools and each other to ship DCO at machine speed.