Skip to main content
Level 2
Oct 15, 2026 4:16 PM UTC
Question

Which will evaluate first.?

Hello ​@all 
Hope you’re doing well


My name is Manideep D, working as AJO Developer for one of the financial organization.
So here I have a conflict with one of the use case.

NOTE: I’ve configured a journey entry capping rule,i.e, only one entry per day which has the highest priority.

 


Use Case:

When a profileA is qualified to both the read audiences(A,B) of journey_1,2. It should enter only Journey_1 because it has the highest priority for that day and avoids Journey_2 as per the capping frequency(one entry per day) and receives Email_1 and wait for the following 14days(initial wait). Until this initial wait period (14 days) profileA is not supposed to enter any other journeys, even if it’s qualified to other audience/journeys_1,2,.

After completing the initial wait(14 days) and receiving the Email_2, it’ll enter into final wait (90 days). From that day profileA can eligible to qualify and enter into another journey which has the top priority for that particular day.

During this final wait in journey_1, profileA again qualified to Journey_1 audience and journey_2 audience.

So here how profileA is going to evaluate and to which journey ProfileA is going to enter and how..?

Please elaborate your explanation, that would be more appreciable. 

Thanks, in advance

Manideep D


 

4 replies

Level 2
Oct 15, 2026 5:59 PM UTC

Hi ​@Manideep D ,

Here’s what I can say for sure about ProfileA.

Your daily cap only limits entries per day (it resets at midnight UTC). It doesn’t hold ProfileA back while it waits in Journey_1. If you want ProfileA kept out of other journeys during the wait, that’s what a concurrency cap is for.

On Day 1, when ProfileA qualifies for both audiences, the higher priority score decides. So it goes into Journey_1 and Journey_2 suppresses it.

During the final wait, ProfileA can’t enter Journey_1 again, because a profile can’t be in the same journey twice at the same time.

One thing in your design won’t work. A profile can only enter a wait it can finish before the 91-day journey timeout. After the 14-day wait you only have about 77 days left, so the 90-day final wait won’t fit in one journey.

Also, give each journey a unique priority score. Scores run from 0 to 100, higher wins, and there’s no tiebreaker if two are equal.

If a profile gets skipped, the Journey Exclusions table in the journey report shows why, either CAP_REACHED or LOWER_PRIORITY.

Translate
Level 2
Oct 20, 2026 2:56 PM UTC

Hello ​@social_portfolio81db 
Thanks for your response.

I know that a profile can’t be a part of same journey at a time. But just want to know what would happen if it’s qualified again during final wait, will it get stuck at journey_1 because it is having high priority and its already part of it OR will it get suppressed from journey_1 and moves to the next priority journey.!

And I‘m also aware on the TTL for a profile in journey is 91 days. But our use case is different, we have to stop the profiles entering the same journey until it completes its final wait (more than 91 days). So we are doing in the audience level exclusion.

Thanks
Manideep D

 

Translate
Level 2
Oct 21, 2026 2:31 PM UTC

​@Manideep D ,

Going by the docs, neither. ProfileA stays in its existing Journey_1 instance and doesn’t get a second entry. For recurring Read Audience journeys, profiles still active in the journey aren’t reset automatically. It also isn’t suppressed from Journey_1 to make room for Journey_2, since the look-ahead suppresses the lower-priority journey when a higher-priority one is coming up.

Whether Journey_2 then takes ProfileA isn’t documented anywhere. For a definite answer, I’d raise it with Adobe Support. The Journey Exclusions table (CAP_REACHED or LOWER_PRIORITY) is worth attaching to the ticket.

Your audience-level exclusion is the right call, since a journey can’t hold a profile past the 91-day timeout.

Regards,

Santhosh

Translate
Level 2
Oct 22, 2026 2:47 PM UTC

Thanks for your suggestion ​@social_portfolio81db, I’ll try.

Translate