The answer i had from them is this;
" Hi Javier,
Thank you for reaching out!
After looking over your account I can see that we do in fact have a claim on this video, and that claim was placed the day the video was uploaded, therefore we’ve been monetizing this video from day 1.
Moving forward, reports for May and June will be made available in the coming weeks
We greatly appreciate your business."
So it means it might be compensated on those reports? I am Interested on this topic 
You def should do it!
Y’all. Do it yesterday. Its been a game changer for me.
@Manriquedelara was April your first report in Identifyy?
No, more than a year with them.
Golden! Thanks a bunch!
Actually I can’t confirm that AdRev has such a bad performance as all the buzz here suggest it.
My AdRev revenue has increase continously over the last 2 years.
So I looked up those companies and found that both Haawk and AudioMicro who AdRev is a part of, reside in the same area of Los Angeles just two miles apart.
I found this too much of a coincidence.
Despite I find all the information you provide us here very helpful, but this call to dump one service to move to another a little fishy.
Nothing fishy on our part. That’s a bit insulting to the authors in this thread.
Many of us have had their AdRev results stagnate and barely generating new matches. This is not true for everyone obviously, as your own (and others’) experience differ.
My experience is that the detections have sky rocketed since I’ve made the switch. That’s all I’m saying for now.
Now regarding the two entities residing a few miles from each other, it’s not surprising. If I remember correctly Identifyy was created by AdRev co-founder (or former employee), it would be logical for them to remain in the vicinity.
So you’re lucky. I wrote how to check if AdRev stopped being efficient or not for each author. If it is efficient for you, you do not have to think about moving.
I have heard so many authors’ reports about increased CID efficiency after moving to Haawk. I haven’t heard complaints yet.
I’m earning more from Identiffy than from aj nowadays 
Update;
This is what i get from Haawk about disappeared claims in the report,
“The team tells me that we didn’t receive any information on this claim from YouTube in April, and that is why it doesn’t show on your dashboard. They are currently looking into this and are awaiting response from YT, so unfortunately we don’t have any additional information for you at this time.”
So, let´s wait till Youtube´s answer…
So what do you guys think of this:
it appears that on 16th September 2020 YouTube has changed its policy for what content is eligible as a Content ID reference.
They state:
"Examples of content that is ineligible for use as a reference:
It may be about loops and other sample libraries halth pre made works though I am not sure.
As it is a sub-bullet point of " You must have exclusive rights to the material in the reference file for the territories where you claim ownership.", I interpret this as you can’t register production music you bought somewhere.
I don’t think it means that the actual author cannot register their own work.
I hope I’m right. Otherwise, we’re screwed.
That is my interpretation as well.
It’s funny, it only seems like yesterday I was evangelising ContentID for our RF music. How the worm turns…
It does seem this is now the case, unfortunately.
This has actually been on the cards for quite some time now (hence why AdRev no longer accept RF and Identifyy now ask registrants to declare if their music is RF from the outset), so no surprise to see it explicitly mentioned in Google’s ContentID policies.
One of the big issues YouTube has had with RF music in the past is that it can be used to facilitate illegitimate content claims on high viewership famous music compilation videos for example, which causes revenues to be misdirected.
I’m not going to explain how that is done exactly, but I’ve seen YT videos discuss it in the past. It seems to have become a real ongoing issue at YouTube. By preventing independent RF/production music into the system in the first place, YouTube is now effectively closing that loophole and get revenues redirected to the correct claimants.
YouTube’s partners (AdRev, Identifyy, et al) have all had to adhere to these new polices and as such I’m already seeing claims of my music on long time popular videos suddenly being ‘released’ - or more like muted/blanked out of the video completely, so you can’t hear it - and no longer appearing in video descriptions or in my AdRev dashboard. Revenue is dropping like a lead balloon as a result of this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is exactly what others had inadvertently noticed and discussed in another thread, with potential claims on videos suddenly disappearing from sight - but that’s speculation at this point. If people see a sudden decline in revenue in their reports ahead, we can probably assume that’s what’s happening.
Needless to say, I’m personally already scrambling to look for new career avenues to make up for this recent shortfall (couldn’t have come at a worse time!) and will probably only submit music to CID fingerprinting that is ‘listening only’ music via an aggregator and isn’t specifically RF/library music.
Should be really good fun to see how all this pans out 
That certainly is depressing.
This is a fear I’ve been having for some years now. Switching to Identifyy and seeing the detection volume go way up had me hoping it was AdRev who had misinterpreted Youtube’s policy and that we now could have full access to this tool.
If getting rid of production music altogether is the actual intent of Youtube, then there is not much we can do, other than beg for our lives.
However, as the content eligibility policy is written now, I read it as do not submit content you’ve bought on production music selling platforms. Which is a real problem many authors had to deal with on here.
I do trust your experience and your insight though, which is why I feel a bit queasy now.
You are right in many points, however I don’t see the evidence of such a pesimistic interpretation. Is it based on some official explanation or is it only your intuition?
And one more thing. Do you remember famous 13 article from EU? It obligates youtube to increase anti plagiarism efficiency and it is unavoidable in EU. So although youtube hate CID (which was made by youtube btw), they have to take care of its efficiency.
I’m actually starting to see an increase in music libraries using self-managed ContentID tools to deal with claims directly (where they submit your music to CID), so I have a feeling YT doesn’t have the intent of blocking production and RF music outright. Just independently submitted production music from composers, such as ours.
One of the big players already openly uses ContentID and YouTube’s API (SyncID) to manage their catalogues across YouTube and prevent things like this in the first place and that’s all RF and production music. This is something I expect to see more of in the future.
Based on private correspondences with AdRev, rapidly depleting revenues, discussions with music library owners and my own experience/observations over the past couple of years.
I probably wouldn’t jump into the conversation if it were purely based on conjecture, as that’s generally empty and unproductive (and I have 2 little screamy kids I should be tending to!) - But saw the updated CID policy and felt inclined to chip in, as this is something I’ve been following closely since I first mentioned CID here back in 2012.
Yes I totally agree, but going by my own observation here, it looks like they’re going in pretty hard this time round, with my music suddenly being manually removed from a variety popular videos. It’s very disconcerting indeed, and the last few months starting to feel our whole business really is built on a house of cards.