Look at the sequence before naming the visitor
A shopper compares products. A shopping assistant does the same thing on a customer’s behalf. A script can also move through a catalogue or repeatedly start a purchase workflow. Similar individual actions can serve different purposes. A useful finding explains the observed sequence without claiming to know who operated the browser or why.
Blokk Bot can highlight supported task patterns, including progression through a catalogue and repeated product-to-cart-to-checkout activity. A task-pattern finding is a reason to inspect the evidence. On its own, it does not prove automation, malicious intent or a completed transaction. Activity with no reported automation signal should not quietly become a confirmed bot count.
A browser signal answers a different question
WebDriver defines a flag through which a cooperating browser can disclose automation control. That can be a useful signal, including when it comes from your own test suite. Its presence does not tell you whether the activity is permitted. Its absence does not certify that a person, rather than software, performed the actions.
Behavioural analysis can examine an eligible sequence without relying on that flag. This helps expose some patterns that a signal-only check would miss, while introducing a different uncertainty: real customers and permitted tools can repeat tasks too. Blokk Bot keeps a behavioural finding distinct from reported browser automation, so the explanation remains useful without inventing an identity.
Read the original evidence, not just the latest visit
Open a finding on Dashboard and check the recorded actions, timing, source and reason. Later ordinary browsing does not erase what originally caused the finding. Equally, an old finding does not establish that a fresh action now meets a protection rule. The time of the original match matters.
Missing or expired detail should stay explicit. A product view is not a cart addition, a reported checkout attempt is not a paid order, and a client report is not independent proof of commerce activity. Collection also depends on connection, consent and scripts executing. Those limits affect how much confidence the available record can support.
- Which supported actions formed the sequence?
- Was the timing eligible when they arrived?
- Is this a browser session or an activity record bound to a signed-in account?
- Is the card reporting a finding, a policy match or a confirmed account change?
A protection rule needs its own approval and evidence
Blokk Bot’s updated account policy includes a repeated purchase-workflow branch as well as the automated cart-add branch. The workflow branch requires a specific recent sequence of supported product views, successful cart-add reports and checkout attempts or starts. Quick browsing, a catalogue finding or a single abandoned cart is not enough. The updated policy needs explicit approval; an older approval is not silently expanded.
On an eligible store, a separately enabled paid policy can queue a same-day checkout restriction for the relevant signed-in account. Guests and different accounts remain outside that restriction. Publication is asynchronous, so the first action can occur before a restriction reaches Shopify. The wider rollout still depends on live refusal and recovery verification; a finding or saved configuration is not proof that a purchase was blocked.
Keep the response proportionate to what is known
For routine monitoring, use the finding to understand the activity; there is no requirement to manually approve every session. If a classification is mistaken, report it from the finding. That feedback is separate from releasing an existing restriction or allowing an account you trust. Choose the explicit account control when access needs to change.
When investigating a disputed restriction, review the saved reason and current account state together. Keep a pending release visible until its result is confirmed. If the original details are unavailable, say so. A clear account of what was observed and what action followed is more useful than presenting uncertain behaviour as a definitive bot identity.