Your marketing budget goes through more governance discipline in a single approval cycle than the measurement process used to evaluate what that budget returned receives in a full year. I want to name that asymmetry directly because it is a control weakness that exists in almost every financial services business I have examined and is almost never described as such.
Budget approval: business case, projection, sign-off, board review. Return measurement: an attribution model built by the marketing team, reviewed by the marketing team, presented to the CFO by the marketing team. At no point in that cycle does an independent view of the methodology sit between the people who designed the measurement and the people using it to govern a significant budget.
In any other area of financial governance that would be considered a control weakness. In marketing measurement it is standard practice because building the alternative requires a capability that most organisations have not constructed and a conversation that nobody has prioritised.
Related reading