In short
Attribute traffic by Sender ID, content signature, message structure, submitting aggregator and timing pattern. Large OTT and application platforms have highly recognisable verification message formats, and correlating those signatures with the aggregators delivering them reveals which platforms drive volume and who is being paid to carry it.
Why attribution matters commercially
A2P volume is highly concentrated. A handful of global applications typically generate a large share of an operator's verification traffic, and they are usually several steps removed from the operator, reaching it through aggregators and resellers.
Knowing which platforms drive the volume changes the negotiation. An operator that knows a single application accounts for a quarter of its OTP traffic is in a different position from one that only knows an aggregator's total.
Attribution signals
Verification messages are surprisingly identifiable:
- Sender ID — registered alphanumeric identities map directly to platforms where registration is enforced
- Content signature — verification message wording and formatting are consistent per platform and stable over long periods
- Message structure — code length, position, language handling and whether a retrieval hash is appended
- Encoding and length behaviour — some platforms consistently produce specific encodings or segment counts
- Timing — verification traffic follows the platform's own regional usage curve
- Aggregator mapping — which submitting account carries each signature, and whether that changes over time
Watching for route changes
Once signatures are established, the useful signal is change. A platform's traffic moving from one aggregator to another indicates a supplier switch worth understanding. The same signature appearing on a P2P route or from a local MSISDN range indicates bypass.
A signature disappearing entirely, while subscribers still verify successfully, indicates the platform moved to another channel — frequently FlashCall.
A note on limits
Attribution by content signature is inference, not certainty, and it should be handled with care where message content is involved. The analysis works on structural characteristics rather than on reading subscriber correspondence, and the operator's own data-protection rules and regulatory obligations govern what may be retained and for how long.