How We Built A Consented First-Party Analytics Stack On rajeevg.com

This started as a deceptively simple request: install the right Google analytics tooling, audit the existing implementation, make the dataLayer genuinely rich, make consent behave properly, and then push the whole stack all the way through to warehousing and reporting.

The final result is not just "GA4 installed." It is a complete measurement system:

• a site-owned, typed analytics contract
• a persistent consent manager
• first-party GTM delivery from https://rajeevg.com/metrics
• a rebuilt web GTM container
• a rebuilt server-side GTM container on Cloud Run
• a live GA4 property with promoted custom definitions
• a BigQuery export link
• a cleaned Looker Studio reporting surface
• a documented audit trail with production proof

This post is the long version of how that was done.

The short version

If you want the implementation source of truth, the canonical repo docs are:

• Analytics Contract
• Google Tagging Stack Audit

What the site now measures

The most important design choice was that the application, not GTM, owns the measurement vocabulary.

That means every event carries stable context such as:

• browser_session_id
• page_view_id
• page_view_sequence
• page metadata like page_type, site_section, content_id, content_tags
• device and viewport state
• referrer classification
• current consent state
• interaction-specific metadata like selected_tags, search_term, destination, interaction_sequence, and engagement summaries

This was the opposite of a thin "just fire page_view and click" implementation. The site now emits a stream that is useful in GA4 reports, clean to relay via server-side GTM, and structured enough to make sense in BigQuery later.

The architecture

flowchart TB
  Browser["Visitor browser"] --> Consent["In-app consent manager"]
  Consent --> DataLayer["App-owned dataLayer"]
  DataLayer --> WebGTM["Web GTM<br/>GTM-K2VRQS47"]
  WebGTM --> Metrics["First-party transport<br/>/metrics"]
  Metrics --> SGTM["Server-side GTM<br/>GTM-W4GKTR3H"]
  SGTM --> GA4["GA4 property<br/>498363924"]
  GA4 --> BQ["BigQuery export<br/>ga4_498363924"]
  GA4 --> Looker["Looker Studio report"]

The critical improvement here is the first-party transport layer. The browser loads GTM from rajeevg.com, not from Google as the primary script origin, and collection is sent to the same first-party path before being relayed by server-side GTM.

The sequence of the work

This was not a one-shot setup. It unfolded in phases.

The agent path changed by phase rather than using one tool for everything:

Phase 1: rebuild the dataLayer first

Before touching the Google admin surfaces, the site had to become explicit about what it meant by a page, a click, a section view, a search interaction, and an engaged session.

The heart of that is src/lib/analytics.ts.

export function getPageAnalyticsContext(pathname = window.location.pathname): AnalyticsPayload {
  const pageTitle = document.title.replace(/\s+[|•-]\s+.*$/, "").trim() || document.title
  const heading = document.querySelector("main h1")
  const contentSlug = getContentSlug(pathname)
  const routeDepth = pathname.split("/").filter(Boolean).length
 
  return compactPayload({
    page_title: pageTitle,
    page_path: pathname,
    page_location: window.location.href,
    page_type: getPageType(pathname),
    site_section: getSiteSection(pathname),
    route_depth: routeDepth,
    content_slug: contentSlug,
    content_title: sanitizeAnalyticsText(heading?.textContent),
    query_string: window.location.search || undefined,
    ...getReferrerContext(),
    ...getPageMetadataAttributes(),
  })
}

A few things are worth calling out here:

• page metadata is derived centrally, so event producers do not all invent their own page naming
• page roots can declare data-analytics-page-* metadata and have it automatically merged into all events
• context is captured once and shared, rather than reassembled ad hoc in every component

That shared contract then feeds every event push:

export function pushDataLayerEvent(
  event: string,
  payload: AnalyticsPayload = {},
  options: AnalyticsEventOptions = {}
) {
  if (typeof window === "undefined") return
 
  const defaultContext = {
    ...getRuntimeAnalyticsContext(),
    ...getPageAnalyticsContext(),
  }
 
  const eventPayload = compactPayload({
    event,
    event_source: "site_app",
    event_timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
    ...defaultContext,
    ...options.context,
    ...payload,
  })
 
  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []
  window.dataLayer.push(eventPayload)
}

This is the point where the implementation moved from "Google tags on a website" to "a site with a real analytics domain model."

Phase 2: make consent a real state machine

The second major shift was that consent could not be treated as an afterthought. It needed:

• default denied analytics storage
• always-denied ad consent
• persistent visitor choice
• rehydration on return visits
• explicit eventing when preferences change

The consent model lives in src/lib/consent.ts.

export function createConsentState(options: {
  analyticsStorage: ConsentChoice
  source: ConsentSource
  updatedAt?: string
}): ConsentState {
  return {
    analytics_storage: options.analyticsStorage,
    ad_storage: "denied",
    ad_user_data: "denied",
    ad_personalization: "denied",
    functionality_storage: "granted",
    security_storage: "granted",
    updated_at: options.updatedAt ?? new Date().toISOString(),
    source: options.source,
  }
}

And the UI plus Google propagation sits in src/components/consent-manager.tsx:

const updateConsent = (analyticsStorage: ConsentChoice, source: ConsentSource) => {
  const nextConsentState = createConsentState({ analyticsStorage, source })
 
  persistConsentState(nextConsentState)
  applyGoogleConsentState(nextConsentState)
  setConsentState(nextConsentState)
  setIsBannerOpen(false)
 
  pushDataLayerEvent("consent_state_updated", {
    consent_source: source,
    consent_preference: analyticsStorage,
    consent_updated_at: nextConsentState.updated_at,
  })
}

The important nuance is that this is consent-aware tracking, not absolute zero-network tracking. Because GTM loads with Consent Mode defaults set to denied, Google can still send cookieless pings before analytics storage is granted.

That matters enough to say plainly:

Consent

The live consent gate on the site

Proof

What changed after explicit consent

Phase 3: first-party GTM delivery through /metrics

The next architectural decision was to stop treating Google-hosted GTM as the primary delivery path.

Instead, the site now injects GTM from a configurable origin and rewrites a first-party path to the live server container.

The bootstrap lives in src/components/tag-manager-script.tsx:

export function TagManagerScript({ gtmId, scriptOrigin }: TagManagerScriptProps) {
  const normalizedOrigin = normalizeScriptOrigin(scriptOrigin)
 
  return (
    <>
      <Script id="google-tag-manager" strategy="afterInteractive">
        {`
          (function(w,d,s,l,i,u){
            w[l]=w[l]||[];
            w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(), event:'gtm.js'});
            var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],
              j=d.createElement(s),
              dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';
            j.async=true;
            j.src=u + '/gtm.js?id=' + i + dl;
            f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);
          })(window,document,'script','dataLayer',${JSON.stringify(gtmId)},${JSON.stringify(normalizedOrigin)});
        `}
      </Script>
    </>
  )
}

And the first-party relay is wired in next.config.ts:

async rewrites() {
  const sgtmUpstreamOrigin = process.env.SGTM_UPSTREAM_ORIGIN
 
  if (!sgtmUpstreamOrigin) {
    return []
  }
 
  return [
    {
      source: "/metrics/:path*",
      destination: `${upstreamOrigin}/:path*`,
    },
  ]
}

That gives the site a stable endpoint:

• GTM script delivery: https://rajeevg.com/metrics/gtm.js?id=GTM-K2VRQS47
• GA4 collection relay: https://rajeevg.com/metrics/g/collect

That is the "first-party" part in concrete terms.

Phase 4: rebuild GTM instead of extending the old mess

One of the most important judgment calls in this whole session had nothing to do with code. The existing GTM workspace looked untrustworthy: paused items, contamination from older tags, and enough warning noise that it was not a good foundation for a clean server-side setup.

So the decision was not to keep patching the old container. The decision was to rebuild on clean containers.

Live web GTM

Web GTM

Published clean web container

Live server-side GTM

Server GTM

Published clean server container

The server container was configured with:

• a GA4 client managed in JavaScript mode
• a GA4 relay tag
• dependency serving for the web container
• a server URL aligned with https://rajeevg.com/metrics

This is one of the quiet but high-leverage moves in the implementation. It makes the browser transport cleaner, gives more control over collection, and lays groundwork for later transformations, filtering, or enrichment.

Proof that it actually behaved correctly

This part matters. It is easy to write a nice narrative about analytics infrastructure. It is harder, and much more useful, to prove what the browser actually did in a fresh session.

For this pass the evidence was captured against the live production article URL in a clean Playwright context, then cross-checked against the app-owned dataLayer and the first-party /metrics requests.

Evidence

Before consent

Evidence

After consent

Evidence

The dataLayer before consent

Evidence

The dataLayer after consent

Evidence

First-party transport proof

That evidence came from a saved proof artifact:

• analytics-article-evidence-20260324/proof.json

The most important takeaways from the proof run were:

• before consent, there were no GA cookies and no stored consent object
• before consent, the app still emitted a denied-state page_context event
• after consent, the app persisted a granted consent object and wrote the expected _ga cookies
• the first-party /metrics transport worked for both GTM delivery and GA collection
• the browser-side event stream visibly recorded the consent transition instead of hiding it inside GTM

Phase 5: promote the schema into GA4 reporting

Getting events into GA4 is only half the story. If the event parameters stay unpromoted, the nicest dataLayer in the world still feels second-class inside GA reporting.

So the site event vocabulary was promoted into GA4 custom definitions:

• 17 custom dimensions
• 14 custom metrics

That includes dimensions like:

• page_type
• site_section
• content_group
• content_type
• content_id
• content_tags
• viewport_category
• analytics_consent_state
• selected_tags
• search_term

And metrics like:

• route_depth
• query_param_count
• interaction_sequence
• engaged_seconds_total
• interaction_count
• section_views_count
• max_scroll_depth_percent
• max_article_progress_percent

GA4

Custom dimensions and metrics promoted into the property

Phase 6: connect warehousing and reporting

With the measurement contract and transport layer in place, the next move was to wire the back half of the stack.

Cloud Run for server-side GTM

Cloud Run

The live sGTM runtime

The current service details were verified directly:

metadata:
  name: sgtm-live
status:
  latestReadyRevisionName: sgtm-live-00002-jzs
  traffic:
  - latestRevision: true
    percent: 100
    revisionName: sgtm-live-00002-jzs
  url: https://sgtm-live-6tmqixdp3a-nw.a.run.app

BigQuery linkage

The project and dataset checks are straightforward:

$ gcloud config get-value project
personal-gws-1
 
$ bq ls --project_id=personal-gws-1
    datasetId
 ---------------
  ga4_498363924

At the GA Admin layer, the property is linked to the BigQuery dataset and attached to the live stream. At the time of the main audit, the remaining caveat was export latency: the link was active, but landing tables had not yet appeared during the same validation window.

That is not a misconfiguration. It is normal GA4 export timing behavior.

Looker Studio

Looker Studio

The cleaned reporting surface

The report was trimmed and organized into pages that match the site:

• Overview
• Audience & Devices
• Acquisition & Content
• Engagement & Key Pages

That is a subtle but important step. Generic dashboards create noise very quickly. The goal here was not to have a dashboard, but to have one that matches how this site is actually used.

The AI-assisted workflow layer

This project also became a useful case study in what an AI-native engineering workflow looks like when it is used carefully rather than theatrically.

What mattered about the workflow was not the novelty of "AI did it." What mattered was the division of labor:

• the site code was changed locally and validated like normal software
• live Google admin surfaces were inspected in a real logged-in browser
• platform state was checked through CLIs and admin APIs
• repo-local docs were updated as part of the implementation rather than left for later

That mix turned out to be the right one. The code changes alone would not have been enough, and the admin clicking alone would not have produced a durable system.

The important thing is that the agent did not use one tool for all of this. It switched between:

• repo-local coding tools when the job was changing the site
• live browser tools when the job depended on authenticated Google state
• CLIs when the job was proving Cloud Run, BigQuery, or deployment status
• repeatable browser automation when the job was acceptance proof rather than exploration

The audit findings that mattered most

A good implementation write-up should not pretend everything was frictionless. These were the most important findings from the actual audit.

1. Consent Mode still sends cookieless pings

This was expected, but it is important enough to repeat.

With GTM present and Consent Mode defaults denied, Google can still issue cookieless pings before analytics storage is granted. That preserves modeled measurement while avoiding analytics storage, but it is not the same thing as hard-blocking all Google network traffic until accept.

2. Rebuilding GTM was the right call

Trying to rehabilitate a noisy, warning-filled, legacy GTM workspace would have made the stack harder to trust. A clean rebuild created a much clearer mental model.

3. The app-owned schema is the real asset

Containers, dashboards, and warehouse links can all be changed later. The durable thing is the site-owned event vocabulary and consent behavior. That is what makes the rest of the stack coherent.

4. BigQuery linkage and BigQuery readiness are not the same moment

The export link can be fully correct before any warehouse tables appear. That lag should be expected and documented rather than mistaken for a broken integration.

The exact stack as shipped

The Codex-side MCP config that supported this work currently resolves to:

analytics_mcp  enabled
gcloud         enabled
gtm_mcp        enabled
chrome_devtools enabled
playwright      enabled

Those were verified locally with:

$ codex mcp list
analytics_mcp    ... enabled
gcloud           ... enabled
gtm_mcp          ... enabled
chrome_devtools  ... enabled
playwright       ... enabled

The repo surfaces that matter most

If I wanted to explain this system to a future me in five file paths, they would be:

• src/lib/analytics.ts
• src/lib/consent.ts
• src/components/consent-manager.tsx
• src/components/tag-manager-script.tsx
• next.config.ts

And if I wanted the operational record, it would be:

• docs/analytics.md
• docs/google-tagging-stack.md
• output/acceptance/analytics-stack-20260323/live-proof.json

What I would extend next

The stack is complete enough to be useful right now, but the next obvious upgrades are clear.

• Add a warehouse-backed QA page once BigQuery export tables are fully populated.
• Add more derived session and content models in BigQuery for analysis that is awkward in raw GA4.
• Build a reporting page focused specifically on consent state and instrumentation quality.
• Expand outbound click and portfolio interaction modeling if the site becomes more conversion-oriented.

Why I think this was worth doing properly

A lot of analytics implementations stop at "the tag fired." That is the beginning, not the end.

What I wanted here was a system that could answer better questions later:

• what kinds of pages get engaged reading rather than drive-by traffic?
• which site sections pull people deeper?
• which tags, searches, and projects actually lead to navigation?
• how much of the session data is happening under granted analytics storage versus denied modeled measurement?
• can the same event vocabulary survive browser analytics, server-side relay, warehouse export, and dashboarding without translation chaos?

That is why this implementation was worth doing end to end.

It is a consented analytics setup, but it is also a publishing and product-systems setup. The site now knows more about how it is being used, and just as importantly, it knows that in a way that is explicit, documented, and portable across layers.