A2P SMS Denominators and Metrics: Limits of the Available Evidence
The evidence reviewed does not verify technical definitions or universal formulas for comparing A2P SMS metrics. This article clarifies what can be stated and what documentation is still needed.
Scope of This Article
The evidence reviewed does not establish technical definitions for A2P SMS statuses or justify a specific denominator for a rate. Accordingly, this article does not provide a verified formula or present as universal an interpretation of labels that may depend on the system.
The links provided point to general resources and do not include relevant technical extracts to support claims specific to this topic. This text sets out that lack of evidence; it is not a practical guide to calculating or comparing metrics.
- A rate formula with a specific denominator cannot be established from the evidence supplied.
- Definitions of attempt, acceptance, rejection, delivery, or pending status cannot be verified.
- Specific technical recommendations require relevant supporting sources.
Unverified Units and Counting Rules
The evidence provided also does not establish how requests, logical messages, segments, or attempts should be treated. Without relevant technical documentation, there is no basis for a universal rule for choosing among these units or relating them in a report.
For the same reason, rules for accounting for retries or concatenation, or for resolving differences in granularity between sources, cannot be verified.
- Technical definitions for requests, messages, segments, or attempts cannot be attributed without a source that describes them.
- The evidence reviewed does not verify counting rules for retries or concatenation.
- Relevant technical documentation is needed to develop this part of a guide.
Statuses and Outcomes: Limits of the Information Reviewed
The evidence provided does not allow technical definitions of sending, acceptance, rejection, pending, or unknown-outcome statuses, or specify which fields represent them. Therefore, this article does not propose verified rules for including or excluding them from a rate.
Nor does it provide technical extracts to justify how to handle delayed outcomes or observation windows. A guide to these topics would require official or technical documentation applicable to the system in question.
- The evidence reviewed does not support definitions of statuses or their signaling fields.
- Rules for including, excluding, or updating delayed outcomes cannot be verified.
- Documentation for the specific system would be needed to prepare a technical guide.
No Support for a Rate Formula
The available evidence does not establish a standard numerator or denominator for an A2P SMS quality rate. Nor does it validate formula examples based on specific statuses.
Without relevant technical extracts, it is not possible to recommend which cases should make up a metric's population or how to classify cases with no outcome.
- A formula cannot be presented as a standard without relevant technical support.
- The evidence reviewed does not allow a universal meaning to be assigned to status labels.
- Before proposing a formula, sources documenting the definitions and fields used are needed.
Segmentation: No Specific Rules Verified
The evidence provided contains no official or technically authoritative extracts supporting specific segmentation rules by destination, operator, sender, content, or traffic type. This description is limited to the results reviewed and does not establish a general technical conclusion.
To develop this section rigorously, relevant sources are needed that explain what data is available and how it is defined in the context of the system being analyzed.
- The evidence reviewed does not allow segmentation rules to be presented as verified.
- Do not infer data or categories that the documentation does not establish.
- The sources provided do not offer a sufficient basis for proposing specific technical criteria.
Retries, Concatenation, and Time Windows
The evidence provided does not allow specific rules for accounting for retries, concatenation, or delayed outcomes to be verified. It also does not support a technical recommendation on counting units or time windows.
To address these topics without adding unsupported claims, relevant specifications and technical documentation for the system in question are needed.
- Verified rules for counting retries or segments cannot be stated.
- The evidence reviewed does not support a definition of observation windows or how to handle delayed outcomes.
- Technical sources applicable to the workflow being analyzed are needed.
What Documentation Is Needed for a Reproducible Guide
The supplied search evidence is insufficient to verify a practical guide to A2P SMS denominators and metrics. The general links do not include relevant extracts supporting the necessary definitions and technical rules.
To proceed, relevant results from 3GPP specifications, official technical documentation for SMS interfaces, and documentation of the statuses or DLRs in the specific system are needed. These are research needs, not sources that this article has consulted or verified in detail.
- Specifications or technical documentation defining the relevant statuses and units.
- Official documentation for the interface used and the fields available.
- Documentation applicable to the meaning of DLR and the system that generates it.
- Sources supporting any proposed rules for segmentation, retries, concatenation, or delayed outcomes.
The Scope of a DLR Is Not Established by the Evidence Reviewed
No technical evidence has been provided to establish what a DLR demonstrates on its own or to verify a relationship between a reported status, receipt on a device, and a person's reading of the message.
The evidence reviewed does not establish what each DLR status reports in a specific system. Authoritative technical extracts and documentation for the system that generates it are needed to clarify this.
- The available evidence does not establish the evidentiary scope of a DLR.
- Claims about receipt on a device or a person reading the message cannot be verified.
- Relevant technical documentation for the system and reported status is needed.
Frequently asked questions
What denominator should I use for an A2P SMS quality rate?
The evidence supplied does not allow a specific denominator or verified formula to be recommended. Relevant technical sources defining the units and statuses used would be needed.
Should I exclude pending or unknown messages?
No sources have been provided that establish technical rules for including or excluding these statuses. Documentation applicable to the system being analyzed is needed.
How do retries affect comparisons between routes?
The available evidence does not allow counting rules for retries or their effect on comparative metrics to be verified. Relevant technical documentation on the units and records would be needed.
Does a DLR prove that the message reached the phone?
The evidence provided does not establish what a DLR demonstrates on its own. Authoritative technical documentation on the system and the meaning of the status is needed to answer this.
Sources consulted
- 3GPP specifications3GPP
- ITU-T E.164International Telecommunication Union
- GSMA resourcesGSMA