OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs Crystal and Brian Byrd bring this interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Byrds brought a putative class action against Aaron’s, Inc. and its franchisee store Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), who they allege violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Concluding that the Byrds’ proposed classes were not ascertainable, the District Court denied their motion for class certification. Because the District [159]*159Court erred in applying our ascertainability precedent, we will reverse and remand.
I.
Aaron’s operates company-owned stores and also oversees independently-owned franchise stores that sell and lease residential and office furniture, consumer electronics, home appliances, and accessories. On July 30, 2010, Crystal Byrd entered into a lease agreement to rent a laptop computer from Aspen Way, an Aaron’s franchisee. Although Ms. Byrd asserts that she made full payments according to that agreement, on December 22, 2010, an agent of Aspen Way came to the Byrds’ home to repossess the laptop on the grounds that the lease payments had not been made. The agent allegedly presented a screenshot of a poker website Mr. Byrd had visited as well as a picture taken of him by the laptop’s camera as he played. The Byrds were troubled and surprised by what they considered a significant and unauthorized invasion of their privacy.
Aspen Way obtained the picture and screenshot through spyware — a type of computer software — designed by DesignerWare, LLC and named “PC Rental Agent.” This spyware had an optional function called “Detective Mode,” which could collect screenshots, keystrokes, and webcam images from the computer and its users. Between November 16, 2010 and December 20, 2010, the Byrds alleged that this spyware secretly accessed their laptop 347 times on eleven different days.1 In total, “the computers of 895 customers across the country ... [had] surveillance conducted through the Detective Mode function of PC Rental Agent.” Byrd v. Aaron’s, Inc., No. CIV.A. 11101E, 2014 WL 1316055, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2014).
The Byrds’ operative class-action complaint asserts claims against Aaron’s, Aspen Way, more than 50 other independent Aaron’s franchisees, and DesignerWare, LLC.2 The complaint alleges violations of and conspiracy to violate the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, and aiding and abetting. On Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Court dismissed the claims against all Aaron’s franchisees other than Aspen Way for lack of standing and also all claims for common law invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. Thus, the Byrds’ remaining claims, and those of the class, are against Aaron’s and Aspen Way for direct liability under the ECPA.
In the meantime, the Byrds moved to certify the class under Federal Rules of [160]*160Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), in which the Byrds provided two proposed classes and one alternative proposed class.3 In briefing the motion, the Byrds proposed the following alternative class definitions:
Class I — All persons who leased and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron’s, Inc., and their household members,' on whose computers Designer-Ware’s Detective Mode was installed and activated without such person’s consent on or after January 1, 2007.
Class II — All persons who leased and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron’s, Inc. or an Aaron’s, Inc. franchisee, and their household members, on whose computers DesignerWare’s Detective Mode was installed and activated without such person’s consent on or after January 1, 2007.
Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *5.
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the Byrds’ motion for certification because the proposed classes were not ascertainable. Regarding owner and lessee class members, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the proposed classes were underinclusive because they did “not encompass all those individuals whose information [was] surreptitiously gathered by Aaron’s franchisees.” Id. The Magistrate Judge also determined that the classes were “overly broad” because not “every computer upon which Detective Mode was activated will state a claim under the ECPA for the interception of an electronic communication.” Id. Regarding “household members,” the Magistrate Judge took issue with the fact that the Byrds did not define the phrase. Id. Further, although the Byrds stated that the identity of household members could be gleaned from “public records,” the Magistrate Judge, citing to Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306, 308 (3d Cir.2013), reasoned that “[i]t [was] not [161]*161enough to propose a method by which this information may be obtained.” Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *5. The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation as the opinion' of the court over the Byrds’ objections. The Byrds timely appealed.
II.
The District Court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). ‘We review a class certification order for abuse of discretion, which occurs if the district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact.” Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 767 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir.2014) (quoting Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 354 (3d Cir.2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo a legal standard applied by a district court. Carrera, 727 F.3d at 305.
III.
The central question in this appeal is whether the District Court erred in determining that the Byrds’ proposed classes were not ascertainable. Because the District Court confused ascertainability with other relevant inquiries under Rule 23, we conclude it abused its discretion and will vacate and remand.
Before discussing these errors, however, we believe it is necessary to address the scope and source of the ascertainability requirement that our cases have articulated. Our ascertainability decisions have been consistent and reflect a relatively simple requirement. Yet there has been apparent confusion in the invocation and application of ascertainability in this Circuit. (Whether that is because, for example, the courts of appeals have discussed ascertainability in varying and distinct ways,4 or the ascertainability requirement [162]*162is implicit rather than explicit in Rule 23,5 we need not say.) Not surprisingly, defendants in class actions have seized upon this lack of precision by invoking the ascertain-ability requirement with increasing frequency in order to defeat class certification.6.
We seek here to dispel any confusion. The source of, or basis for, the ascertainability requirement as to a Rule 23(b)(3) class is grounded in the nature of the class-action device itself. In endeavoring to further explain this concept, we adhere to the precise boundaries of ascertainability previously iterated in the quartet of cases we discuss below. The ascertainability requirement as to a Rule 23(b)(3) class is consistent with the general understanding that the class-action device deviates from the normal course of litigation in large part to achieve judicial economy. See Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1432 (discussing generally the nature of the class-action device). Ascertainability functions as a necessary prerequisite (or implicit requirement) because it allows a trial court effectively to evaluate the explicit requirements of Rule 23. In other words, the independent ascertainability inquiry ensures that a proposed class will actually function as a class. This understanding of the source of the ascertainability requirement takes a forward-looking view of the administration of the Rule 23(b)(3) class-action device in practice.
[163]*163A.
The class-action device is an exception to the rule that litigation is usually “ ‘conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’ ” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979)). Accordingly, the party proposing class-action certification bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence her compliance with the requirements of Rule 23. Id. And a court evaluating a motion for class certification is obligated to probe behind the pleadings when necessary and conduct a “rigorous analysis” in order to determine whether the Rule 23 certification requirements are satisfied. Id.; In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir.2008), as amended (Jan. 16, 2009). A plaintiff seeking certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is ascertainable.7 Hayes, 725 F.3d at 354. The rigorous analysis requirement applies equally to the ascertainability inquiry. Carrera, 727 F.3d at 306.
The ascertainability inquiry is two-fold, requiring a plaintiff to show that: (1) the class is “defined with reference to objective criteria”; and (2) there is “a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.” Id. at 355 (citing Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 593-94 (3d Cir.2012)). The ascertainability requirement consists of nothing more than these two inquiries. And it does not mean that a plaintiff must be able to identify all class members at class certification — instead, a plaintiff need only show that “class members can be identified.” Carrera, 727 F.3d at 308 n. 2 (emphasis added). This preliminary analysis dovetails with, but is separate from, Rule 23(c)(l)(B)’s requirement that the class-certification order include “(1) a readily discernible, clear, and precise statement of the parameters defining the class or classes to be certified, and (2) a readily discernible, clear, and complete list of the claims, issues or defenses to be treated on a class basis.”. Wachtel ex rel. Jesse v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 453 F.3d 179, 187-88 (3d Cir.2006).
We have on four occasions addressed the requirement that a Rule 23(b)(3) class be “ascertainable” in order to be certified. Our quartet of cases began with Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, in which we adopted this implicit ascertainability requirement. 687 F.3d at 592-94. We explained, “If class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or ‘mini-trials,’ then a class action is inappropriate.” Id. at 593. We concluded that the proposed class “raise[d] serious ascertainability issues,” largely because the plaintiffs could not identify cars with the allegedly defective run-flat tires. Id. at 593. The defendants did not maintain records that would demonstrate whether a putative class member’s run-flat tires “ ‘ha[d] gone flat and been replaced,’ as the class definition require^],” and the plaintiffs had not proposed “a reliable, administratively feasible alternative” to identify class members. Id. at 594.
[164]*164Shortly thereafter, in Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., we straightforwardly applied the ascertainability rule established by Marcus and remanded the ease to the district court to apply Marcus’s standard and to allow the plaintiffs to “offer some reliable and administratively feasible alternative that would permit the court to determine” whether the class was ascertainable. 725 F.3d at 355. That same month, we decided Carrera v. Bayer Corp., an appeal involving the proposed certification of a “class of consumers who purchased Bayer’s One-A-Day WeightS-mart diet supplement in Florida.” 727 F.3d at 303. To prove ascertainability, the plaintiff proposed using retailer records and class member affidavits attesting to purchases of the diet supplement. Id. at 308. Although we opined that retail records “may be a perfectly acceptable method of proving class membership,” we noted that the plaintiffs proposed retail records did not identify a single purchaser of the Bayer diet supplement. Id. at 308-09. We therefore rejected the proposed methods of proving ascertainability.
As to the use of affidavits, we began by explaining that in Marcus, “[w]e cautioned ‘against approving a method that would amount to no more than ascertaining by potential class members’ say so.’ ” Id. at 306 (quoting Marcus, 687 F.3d at 594). We rejected the plaintiffs proposed methodology to screen out false affidavits because the plaintiffs expert declaration did not establish that the “affidavits will be reliable” or “propose a model for screening claims.” Id. at 311. Remarkably, even the named plaintiff could not recall whether he had purchased the diet supplement. Id. at 311 n. 9.
We were careful to specify in Carrera that “[although some evidence used to satisfy ascertainability, such as corporate records, will actually identify class members at the certification stage, ascertainability only requires the plaintiff to show that class members can be identified.” Id. at 308 n. 2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no records requirement. Carrera stands for the proposition that a party cannot merely provide assurances to the district court that it will later meet Rule 23’s requirements. Id. at 306. Nor may a party “merely propose a method of ascertaining a class without any evidentiary support that the method will be successful.” Id. at 306, 307, 311.
Following the Marcus-Hayes-Carrera trilogy, we again considered the issue of ascertainability in Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 767 F.3d at 184-85. There we affirmed the denial of certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class on predominance grounds, but noted that the district court also erred in denying certification based on ascertainability. Id. at 184-85. We concluded that the district court’s analysis “conflated ascertainability with the predominance inquiry.” Id. at 184. The predominance and ascertainability inquiries are distinct, we explained, because “ ‘the ascertainability requirement focuses on whether individuals fitting the class definition may be identified without resort to mini-trials, whereas the predominance requirement focuses on whether essential elements of the class’s claims can be proven at trial with common, as opposed to individualized, evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Hayes, 725 F.3d at 359).
Ascertainability is closely tied to the other relevant preliminary inquiry we addressed in Marcus, 687 F.3d at 592, that plaintiffs provide a proper class definition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B). A trial court also needs a class to be “defined with reference to objective criteria” and some assurance that there can be “a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall [165]*165within the class definition,” Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355, in order to rigorously analyze the explicit Rule 23(a) and (b) certification requirements, Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1432. When combined with the separate class-definition requirement from Wachtel, that a class-certification order contain “a readily discernible, clear, and precise statement of the parameters defining the class or classes to be certified,” 453 F.3d at 187-88, district courts have the necessary tools to determine whether “a party seeking to maintain a class action” can “ ‘affirmatively demonstrate his compliance’ with Rule 23.” See Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1432 (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)).
And after certification, a trial court is tasked with providing “the best notice that is practicable” to the class members under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), “ ‘including individual notice to all class members who can be identified through reasonable effort.’ ” Larson v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 687 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir.2012) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B)). We are “stringent in enforcing th[at] individual notice requirement.” Id. at 126. The separate ascertainability requirement ensures that class members can be identified after certification, Carrera, 727 F.3d at 308 n. 2, and therefore better prepares a district court to “direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B); see also Larson, 687 F.3d at 117 n. 10, 123-31 (applying the Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requirement).8
The ascertainability inquiry is narrow. If defendants intend to challenge ascertainability, they must be exacting in their analysis and not infuse the ascertainability inquiry with other class-certification requirements. As we said in Carrera, “ascertainability only requires the plaintiff to show that class members can be identified.” 727 F.3d at 308 n. 2. This inquiry will not be relevant in every case and is independent from the other requirements of Rule 23.
B.
With this explanation of ascertain-ability in mind, we will reverse the District Court for four reasons. First, the District Court abused its discretion by misstating the rule governing ascertainability. Second, the District Court engrafted an “underinclusive” requirement that is foreign to our ascertainability standard. Third, the District Court made an errant conclusion of law in finding that an “overly broad” class was not ascertainable. And fourth, the District Court improperly applied the legal principles from Carrera to the issue of whether “household members” could be ascertainable.
1.
The District Court misstated the. law governing ascertainability by conflating our standards governing class definition [166]*166with the aseertainability requirement. The District Court prefaced its discussion with the section header “Aseertainability and Defining the Class.” The District Court then stated the following as the applicable legal standard:
“As an ‘essential prerequisite’ to the Rule 23 analysis, the Court must consider 1) whether there is a precisely defined class and 2) whether the named Plaintiffs are members of the class. Marcus v. BMW of North America, 687 F.3d 583, 596 (3d Cir.2012). ... At the first step of the analysis, determining whether there is a precisely defined class entails two separate and important elements: ‘first, the class must be defined with reference to objective criteria’ and ‘second, there must be a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.’ Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 355 (3d Cir.2013).”
Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *3.
Although the District Court is correct that the class definition requirements are applicable to a class-certification order, Wachtel, 453 F.3d at 187-88, and that class definition is a valid preliminary consideration, Marcus, 687 F.3d at 591-92, it was not the reason the District Court denied class certification. What the District Court described as the two requirements for a “precisely defined class” was in fact the inquiry relevant to the aseertainability standard. See Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355. In blending the issue of aseertainability with that of class definition (which Marcus took pains to address as separate preliminary inquiries that preceded the Rule 23 analysis, 687 F.3d at 591-94), the District Court erred.
Also troubling is the District Court’s discussion of class membership. Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *3, *6 n. 8. The question of “whether the named Plaintiffs are members of the class” has nothing to do with either the requirements of a class definition, Wachtel, 453 F.3d at 187-88, or the aseertainability standard, Marcus, 687 F.3d at 592-94. In fact, the District Court’s citation to Marcus on this point related to its discussion of numerosity— not class definition or aseertainability. See Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *3 (citing Marcus, 687 F.3d at 596 (discussing numerosity)). And although the District Court generally cited to Hayes, in that case we addressed “membership” not as relating to aseertainability and only with regard to whether the named plaintiff had Article III standing to sue as a class representative. See Hayes, 725 F.3d at 360-61. In sum, we conclude that the District Court should have applied nothing more or less than the aseertainability test that has been consistently laid out by this Court.
2.
The District Court also abused its discretion in determining that the proposed classes were not ascertainable because they were underinclusive. The District Court reasoned that although the records provided by Aaron’s “may reveal the computers upon which Detective Mode was activated and the owner/lessee of that computer,” the Byrds did “not provide an administratively feasible way to determine whose information was surreptitiously gathered.” Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *5. For this reason, the District Court explained, the proposed “class definition [did] not encompass all those individuals whose information ha[d] been surreptitiously gathered by Aaron’s franchisees.” Id. But the District Court was looking to an old, no-longer-operative class definition, see supra, n. 3, because the Byrds had redefined the proposed classes by eliminating the requirement that a class member’s infor[167]*167mation was “intercepted” or “surreptitiously gathered.”9 Thus, the District Court’s analysis was not germane to the Byrds’ proposed class definitions or the relevant bases for class membership.
Defendants contend that “underinelusiveness” was an appropriate consideration in support of the denial of class certification. They rely on a district court decision, Bright v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 292 F.R.D. 190, 197 (D.N.J.2013), to support their argument. But “whether the defined class specifies a particular group that was harmed during a particular time frame, in a particular location, in a particular way,” Bright, 292 F.R.D. at 197 (emphasis added), is not included in our ascertainability test. Further, requiring such specificity may be unworkable in some cases and approaches requiring a fail-safe class. See Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 825 (7th Cir.2012) (explaining that a fail-safe class is “one that is defined so that whether a person qualifies as a member depends on whether the person has a valid claim”). Defining the class “in terms of the legal injury,” In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d at 22, is not the same as requiring the class to be defined “with reference to objective criteria.” See Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355.
We decline to engraft an “underinclusivity” standard onto the ascertainability requirement. Individuals who are injured by a defendant but are excluded from a class are simply not bound by the outcome of that particular action. Cf. e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 884, 894, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (“Representative suits with preclusive effect on nonparties include properly conducted class actions.”); United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 158 n. 3, 104 S.Ct. 568, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984) (“Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies on the same cause of action.”). In the context of ascertainability, we have only mentioned “underinclusivity” with regard to whether the records used to establish ascertainability were sufficient, see Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355 (citing Marcus, 687 F.3d at 594), not whether there are injured parties that could also be included in the class. Requiring a putative class to include all individuals who may have been harmed by a particular defendant could also severely undermine the named class representative’s ability to present typical claims (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3)) and adequately represent the interests of the class (Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4)). The ascertainability standard is neither designed nor intended to force all potential plaintiffs who may have been harmed in different ways by a particular defendant to be included in the class in order for the class to be certified.
3.
Similarly, the District Court also abused its. discretion in determining that the proposed classes were not ascertain[168]*168able because they were “overly broad.” The District Court concluded that “more problematic for Plaintiffs is the fact that the alternative definitions are overly broad” because “[n]ot every computer upon which Detective Mode was activated will state a claim under the ECPA for the interception of electronic communication.” Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *5. There was, again, no reference to our ascertainability precedent or that of any other court.
Defendants also rely on Bright for the proposition that a class is not “ascertainable if it is decoupled from the underlying allegations of harm rendering it ... over-broad.” See Bright, 292 F.R.D. at 197. They also cite myriad cases from other district courts and courts of appeals to justify the consideration of overbreadth in our ascertainability standard. Such applications of the ascertainability standard fuel the precise mistake we attempted to correct in Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. — that is, injecting the explicit requirements of Rule 23 into the ascertainability standard without actually analyzing those requirements under the correct portion of Rule 23. See 767 F.3d at 184 n. 5 (“Predominance and ascertainability are separate issues.”). And at oral argument, Defendants conceded that the District Court’s analysis regarding overbreadth was really identifying a potential predominance problem.
Defendants’ reliance on authority outside this Circuit does nothing to bolster their argument. For example, they extensively discuss Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.2006), to support the proposition that an overbroad class is not ascertainable. In Oshana, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a class consisting of “all Illinois purchasers of fountain Diet Coke from March 12, 1999 forward” was certifiable under Rule 23. Id. at 509. The Court required that in addition to satisfying the Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements, a “plaintiff must also show ... that the class is indeed identifiable as a class.” Id. at 513. Reasoning that the proposed class could “include millions who were not deceived and thus have no grievance under the [Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act],” the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the proposed class was “not sufficiently definite to warrant class certification.” Id. at 513-14.
The “definiteness” standard from Oshana is distinguishable from our Circuit’s ascertainability requirement. The standard applied in the Seventh Circuit is based on the premise that because “[i]t is axiomatic that for a class action to be certified a ‘class’ must exist,” Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 669 (7th Cir.1981), a class definition must be definite enough for the class to be ascertained, Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 (7th Cir.1977). In short, the class must be “indeed identifiable as a class.” Oshana, 472 F.3d at 513. A class may be indefinite where “the relevant criteria for class membership [is] unknown.” Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., 668 F.3d 481, 495 (7th Cir.2012). Although this doctrine is similar to the parameters laid out in our ascertainability cases, it blends together our Circuit’s ascertainability and class definition requirements. Compare Oshana, 472 F.3d at 513, with Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355, and Wachtel, 453 F.3d at 187-88. As we made patent in Marcus, we address class definition and ascertainability as separate inquiries. 687 F.3d at 591-94.
Defendants also argue that a proposed class is overbroad “where putative class members lack standing or have not been injured.” Defendants’ argument conflates the issues of ascertainability, overbreadth (or predominance), and Article III standing. We have explained that the issue of [169]*169standing is separate from the requirements of Rule 23. See, e.g., Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 135 (3d Cir.2000) (“In addition to the requirements expressly enumerated in Rule 23, class actions are also subject to more generally applicable rules such as those governing standing and mootness.”). To the extent Defendants meant to challenge any potential differences between the proposed class representatives and unnamed class members, such differences should be considered within the rubric of the relevant Rule 23 requirements — such as adequacy, typicality, commonality, or predominance. See Grandalski, 767 F.3d at 184-85; see also Holmes, 213 F.3d at 137-38 (discussing an “overbroad” class as requiring individual determinations that fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement). Conversely, if Defendants intended to argue that all putative class members must have standing, such challenges should be squarely raised and decided by the District Court. Because the District Court has yet to conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, we decline to address these issues in the first instance.
The Byrds’ proposed classes consisting of “owners” and “lessees” are ascertainable. There are “objective records” that can “readily identify” these class members, cf. Grandalski, 767 F.3d at 184 n. 5, because, as explained by the District Court, “Aaron’s own records reveal the computers upon which Detective Mode was activated, as well as the full identity of the customer who leased or purchased each of those computers.” Byrd, 2014 WL 1316055, at *5. The District Court’s conclusion to the contrary was an abuse of discretion.
4.
The District Court again abused its discretion in determining that “household members” were not ascertainable. The District Court concluded that the inclusion of the phrase “household members” in the Byrds’ revised class definitions was vague and not ascertainable. In the Byrds’ reply brief on the motion for class-action certification, they asserted in a footnote that “[hjousehold members can easily be objectively verified through personal and public records. And their usage of the owner/lessee’s computers can also be easily objectively established.” The Magistrate Judge recommended denying class certification because the Byrds did not define “household members” or prove by a preponderance of the evidence how “ ‘household members’ can be verified through personal and public records.”
In their objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Byrds argued that they intended “the plain meaning of ‘household members.’ ” On appeal, the Byrds continue to argue that they intended the plain meaning of “household members” to be “all of the people, related or unrelated, who occupy a housing unit.” By way of example, the Byrds cite to multiple definitions used in government documents for census, taxation, and immigration purposes. With these definitions, they contend that the simple act of confirming membership would mean matching addresses in public records with that of an owner or lessee that had already been identified.
The “household members” of owners or lessees are ascertainable. Although the government documents cited by the Byrds do contain slight variations on the definition of a household member (as noted by Defendants), the Byrds presented the District Court with various ways in which “household members” could be defined and how relevant records could be used to verify the identity of household members. [170]*170Because the District Court summarily adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and no oral argument was held on the class-certification motion, we are left to wonder why the District Court determined that the Byrds’ explanation in their objections to the Report and Recommendation was inadequate.
The parties also dispute whether the phrase “household members” is often used in class definitions. Although it is true that the phrase “household members” has been used in other class definitions,10 we decline the invitation categorically to conclude that the use of this phrase will always have sufficient precision in the ascertainability context. The inquiry in any given case should be whether a class is “defined with reference to objective criteria” and whether there is a “reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.” Hayes, 725 F.3d at 355. Whether a class is ascertainable is dependent on the nature of the claims at issue. But as used here, “household members” is a phrase that is easily defined and not, as Defendants argue, inherently vague.
We also conclude that Defendants’ and the District Court’s reliance on Carrera is misplaced. In Carrera, we concluded that the plaintiffs’ proposed reliance on affidavits alone, without any objective records to identify class members or a method to weed out unreliable affidavits, could not satisfy the ascertainability requirement. 727 F.3d at 311. Here the Byrds presented the District Court with multiple definitions of class members and simply argued that a form similar to those provided could be used to identify household members. This is a far cry from an unverifiable affidavit, or the absence of any methodology that can be used later to ascertain class members. See id. at 310-11.
The Byrds’ proposed method to ascertain “household members” is neither administratively infeasible nor a violation of Defendants’ due process rights. Because the location of household members is already known (a shared address with one of the 895 owners and lessees identified by the Byrds), there are unlikely to be “serious administrative burdens that are incongruous with the efficiencies expected in a class action.” Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). There will always be some level of inquiry required to verify that a person is a member of a class; for example, a person’s statement that she owned or leased an Aspen Way computer would eventually require anyone charged with administering the fund resulting from a successful class action to ensure that person is actually among the 895 customers identified by the Byrds. Such a process of identification does not require a “ ‘mini-trial,’ ” nor does it amount to “ ‘individualized fact-finding,’ ” Carrera, 727 F.3d at 307 (quoting Marcus, 687 F.3d at 594), and [171]*171indeed must be done in most successful class actions.
Certainly, Carrera does not suggest that no level of inquiry as to the identity of class members can ever be undertaken. If that were the case, no Rule 23(b)(3) class could ever be certified. We are not alone in concluding that “the size of a potential class and the need to review individual files to identify its members are not reasons to deny class certification.” See Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 539-40 (6th Cir.2012) (collecting cases). To hold otherwise would seriously undermine the purpose of a Rule 23(b)(3) class to aggregate and vindicate meritorious individual claims in an efficient manner. Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) 1966 advisory committee’s notes (Rule 23(b)(3) “achieve[s] economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote[s] uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.”).
As to Defendants’ contention that their due process rights would be violated, Carr-era counsels that this due process right relates to the ability to “challenge the proof used to demonstrate class membership.” 727 F.3d at 307. Here, the Byrds are not relying solely on unverified affidavits to establish ascertainability. See id. at 307-08; Hayes, 725 F.3d at 356 (reasoning that a class is not ascertainable where “the only proof of class membership [was] the say-so of putative class members”). Any form used to indicate a household member’s status in the putative class must be reconciled with the 895 known class members or some additional public records. Defendants, are not foreclosed from challenging the evidence the Byrds propose to use.
In sum, the District Court erred in its application of Carrera and in concluding that the phrase “household members” was inherently vague.
C.
In light of the errors discussed above, we will remand to the District Court to consider the remaining Rule 23 certification requirements in the first instance. At oral argument and in their briefs, Defendants urged us to read the District Court’s ruling as one on predominance, independently review the record in this case, and conclude that the Byrds’ proposed classes fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. Defendants contend that the elements of an ECPA claim, particularly that each plaintiff must show the interception of the “contents” of an “electronic communication,” create insurmountable barriers to proving predominance. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), (c), (d). Formidable though these barriers may be, they are not for us to address in the first instance.
Beginning in General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160-161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982), through its recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. at 1432, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for a district court to conduct a rigorous analysis of the evidence in support of certification under Rule 23. “By their nature, interlocutory appeals are disruptive, time-consuming, and expensive”; thus, it makes sense to allow the “district court an opportunity to fine-tune its class certification order ... rather than opening the door too widely to interlocutory appellate review.”' Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 294-95 (1st Cir.2000) (exercising discretionary authority under Rule 23(f) in order to give a district court “a better sense as to which aspects of the class certification decision might reasonably be open .to subsequent reconsideration”). This is consistent with [172]*172the narrow, yet flexible, set of considerations we address in granting a Rule 23(f) petition. See Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 164-65 (3d Cir.2001); see also In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig., 775 F.3d 570, 578 n. 9 (3d Cir.2014). We best exercise appellate review when the dust has settled and a district court has fully considered a motion for class-action certification.
What is more, a close reading of Defendants’ response briefs demonstrates how they continue to conflate ascertainability with the other relevant requirements of Rule 23. We write again to emphasize that at class certification, Rule 23’s explicit requirements go beyond and are separate from the ascertainability inquiry. Precise analysis of relevant Rule 23 requirements will always be necessary. We therefore decline to go beyond the scope of the District Court’s opinion.
IV.
The District Court erred both in relying on an errant conclusion of law and improperly applying law to fact. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand for further consideration in light of this opinion.