docs(clay-ads-compliance-best-practices): add exclusion FAQ, hashing FAQ, two best-practice bullets, update subtitle

[george-dilthey]

What changed

Applied four upstream deltas from the Webflow collection_item_published webhook to docs/clay-ads-compliance-best-practices.md:

1. Page subtitle updated: "Keep your ad campaigns compliant with Clay's automatic targeting controls for US/international audiences and Google Ads." → "Understand which ad platforms require first-party data and how Clay filters audiences to meet their requirements."
2. Two new best-practice bullets added: "Build net-new reach from a seed list you own" and "Check what your own terms already cover."
3. New FAQ added: "Do these rules apply to an audience I only use for exclusion?" (inserted before the company audiences FAQ).
4. New FAQ added: "Which fields are hashed before they reach an ad platform?" — with Bing claim corrected from upstream (upstream said "send the remaining fields as plain text" but Bing only supports email; corrected to "Bing Ads hashes the email address only").

One upstream delta was not applied: the sentence "That covers the enrichments most ad audiences rely on, including additional emails and Enhanced matching results." — dropped because the CPJ exclusion logic it describes is gated by the enable-ads-cpj-exclusion Eppo flag (defaultValue: false, only tested on one workspace as of April 2026, no GA announcement found). See Uncertainties.

Local-only enrichments preserved: "Recurring syncs run every 3 days" in the Best Practices opt-outs bullet and opt-outs FAQ answer (not in either upstream version).

Why

Triggered by a Webflow collection_item_published webhook for https://university.clay.com/docs/clay-ads-compliance-best-practices.

Source link(s)

• https://university.clay.com/docs/clay-ads-compliance-best-practices
• Verifier PASS — exclusion audiences filtering (UNKNOWN on liveness/Eppo gate, see Uncertainties): apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/ad-audience-segment-export-context.ts:104–148
• Verifier PASS — Google Ads hashing: apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/google/google-field-validators.ts:48–137
• Verifier PASS — Meta Ads hashing: apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/meta/meta-field-validators.ts:25–102
• Verifier PASS — LinkedIn Ads hashing: apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/linkedin/linkedin-field-validators.ts:102–104
• Verifier PASS (after FAIL→correction) — Bing Ads hashing: libs/shared/src/ad-audiences/all-field-names.ts:138 + apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/bing/bing-field-validators.ts:13–31
• Verifier UNKNOWN — Enhanced matching / CPJ exclusion gate: apps/api/v3/ad-audiences/domain/ad-sync-cpj-exclusion-filters.ts:20–26 (EppoFeatureFlags.EnableAdsCpjExclusion, defaultValue: false)

Uncertainties

CPJ exclusion / enable-ads-cpj-exclusion Eppo flag: Both the new "Enhanced matching" sentence and, to a lesser extent, the exclusion audiences FAQ depend on the CPJ exclusion filtering logic gated by enable-ads-cpj-exclusion (defaultValue: false). The Slack #team-ads thread from April 21 2026 shows the flag was being tested on a single workspace; no GA/all-customers rollout announcement was found. I dropped the "Enhanced matching" sentence entirely (too specific to the gated feature). The exclusion audiences FAQ is included because it describes the general architecture (filtering happens at build time, not based on audience intent), which is accurate when the feature is on — but a reviewer should confirm whether this Eppo flag has since been rolled out broadly before merging.

Related observations

The upstream diff also included a sentence referencing "Enhanced matching" as a covered enrichment type. That label does not appear in the codebase; it may be a product UI term worth verifying with the Ads team before adding to docs.

Closes DOC-2036

[linear-code]

DOC-2036