If distribution results cannot be separated by source, start by preserving one representative example. It gives the investigation a concrete reference and makes the eventual correction easier to judge.
Find the likely cause
Tracking conventions are inconsistent.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Use a documented attribution approach and stable campaign naming.
Distribution should connect a useful asset to the places where its intended readers already seek that kind of help.
Check that the repair worked
Check that reported sources match the actual placements.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: a strong article receives no planned distribution. Assign appropriate channels and a responsible owner before release.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track qualified visits and useful actions by distribution context, including time spent promoting.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.