Browse abandonment was not broken, it was starved
Zero orders off a flow that looked dead. The store could identify 0.8 percent of its visitors, so the flow was already reaching almost everyone it could.
The symptom
Browse abandonment on a store with roughly 7,500 monthly sessions: 60 sends, 24 opens at 40 percent, 6 clicks at 10 percent, zero orders. The obvious read is a broken flow.
The measurement that changed the diagnosis
On site activity showed 157 events from 63 unique identified people in 30 days. Against about 7,500 sessions that is an identification rate near 0.8 percent. The platform can only trigger browse abandonment for someone it can identify, so the flow was already reaching nearly everyone available to it. Zero orders off 6 clicks is statistically expected, not evidence of failure.
The real constraint was upstream
The same account showed 46 checkout starts and 35 completed orders in the window, about 80 percent completion, which makes the addressable abandoned cart pool roughly 8 people a month. Optimizing either flow harder would have moved nothing.
Where the work belongs
Capture. Every identified visitor compounds into every flow downstream. This is why Capture sits at stage three of the method and not as an afterthought at the end.
Real numbers from a live client account. Every result page carries the before, the after, and what the figure does not prove.