Hello,
In the past, we (Criteo) have experienced shared ID issues that we could not find the root cause for, even with extensive analysis and collaboration with Google.
As a result, while the proposal allows us to circumvent failures by rerunning failing batches without the invalid elements (and thus brings about a great first step in debugging), we think it would greatly benefit from including detailed information about the execution(s) that previously consumed the privacy budget for the failing reports.
This detailed information could include:

• Discriminating information to identify the job that previously consumed the privacy budget (e.g. the JobKey)

but also

• the reportIDs within that job that had this same sharedInfo

Additionally:

The budget recovery request must come from the email that was provided as the point of contact during Aggregation Service onboarding so we can ensure the request is valid.

is a very harsh restriction that we believe should be made somewhat more relaxed. For instance if the original onboarding was done with an individual's email rather than a mailing list or other type of shared email, this may cause problems (e.g. the original onboarding requestor leaving the company).
Could the request maybe originate from the same domain (indicating the same company)?

Thank you for sharing your feedback. We are glad to hear that providing report_ids will be valuable in debugging PRIVACY_BUDGET_EXHAUSTED jobs. We agree that including further details on the job that previously consumed the privacy budget can add more value for debugging. Providing this information is in our plan and we will share more information on it in future once the details are finalized.

Regarding your second comment, we have noted your feedback. To clarify the requirement, adtechs must fill out the budget recovery form to initiate the process. Our expectation is that the email you provide in the “Email Address of Point of Contact” field of your budget recovery form response matches the email you provided in the “Email Address of Point of Contact” field of your onboarding form response. In future iterations of budget recovery, we plan to make request verification more convenient. For tracking purposes, I will add a comment to the issue where we're accepting feedback on budget recovery with a reference to this feedback.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback on the proposal to provide debugging information for PRIVACY_BUDGET_EXHAUSTED errors. After further consideration, we have refined our approach to optimize both informational value and system efficiency.

Instead of providing report_ids, we propose providing the shared_info fields that are used in shared_id calculation from the contributing aggregatable reports. These fields will include api, version, attribution_destination, reporting_origin, scheduled_report_time and source_registration_time for Attribution Reporting API (ARA) reports. This adjustment offers equivalent, debugging capability while mitigating potential scalability concerns.

Specifically, utilizing shared_info presents several advantages:
Reduced Storage Overhead: The size of report_ids can grow significantly, leading to substantial and unintentional cloud storage costs. In contrast, the shared_info fields remain compact, minimizing storage and processing overhead.
Enhanced Efficiency: Providing shared_info reduces processing cost due to fewer steps in the Aggregation service, minimizing delays in adtechs getting the debugging info
Usability: This would be the similar for both shared_info and report_id where adtechs can use either to identify problematic reports and filter out before re-running the job

We welcome your further input on this refined proposal.