Operational guidance only. Qualified owners retain accounting, payroll, HR, legal, security, insurance, and policy decisions.
Treat a match as a review candidate
Two records that look alike are not automatically the same entity. A customer may share a name with another customer; two locations may use the same billing address. Prepare a candidate list with the reason each pair was flagged. Preserve both records until an authorized owner decides what to do.
Define the population and the comparison
Choose a bounded record set and identify its authoritative system. Agree which fields can indicate a match and which differences require a stop. Compare stable identifiers where available; names, addresses and dates can help review but may be incomplete or change over time.
| Evidence | What the assistant records | What remains uncertain |
|---|---|---|
| Record identifiers | Both original references | Whether they represent the same entity |
| Matching fields | Exact values and source locations | Whether a shared value is unique |
| Conflicting fields | Both values without overwriting | Which source governs |
| Linked activity | Orders, invoices or other relationships | How consolidation affects history |
| Proposed next action | Review question and owner | Permission to merge, void or retain |
Example: one customer name, two branches
Two customer records have the same trading name and head-office address, but different branch identifiers and active orders. The assistant records the apparent match and the conflicting branch information. The owner may decide that the accounts must remain separate. A matching name should not erase that relationship.
Keep detection separate from merging
Use approved comparison rules to flag candidates. Do not run an irreversible bulk merge merely because a similarity score is high. The reviewer needs to decide the surviving identifier, field values, linked-record treatment and any required communication. A tidy-looking list is not evidence that a merge is safe.
Prepare a traceable decision packet
Return the candidate pair, source links, match reason, conflicts and related activity. Ask one clear question: retain both, correct a field, investigate further or authorize a defined merge. Record the dated decision and its scope. An unanswered item stays open with an owner.
Verify an authorized change
Where the system permits an approved change, retain the before-and-after identifiers and the execution result. Check that intended relationships remain accessible and unrelated records were not changed. Follow the system owner's recovery process for an incorrect result; do not improvise a second merge to conceal the first error.
Improve the intake rule
Review false positives and recurring causes, such as inconsistent identifiers or imports that bypass existing-record checks. Test a proposed rule on a representative sample before expanding it. Data entry support can maintain the candidate queue and evidence while your team retains merge authority.
Questions to settle before starting
Is a matching email address sufficient?
It may be useful evidence, but shared inboxes, recycled addresses and imported errors can create false matches. Use the approved identity rule for the record type and preserve conflicting evidence.
What should the reviewer receive?
Both references, matching and conflicting fields, linked activity, the proposed action and its limitations. Include source locations so the reviewer can inspect the original records.
What does completed mean?
The authorized decision was applied or explicitly deferred, the result was checked and the evidence is retrievable. Counting flagged records alone does not establish a successful cleanup.