Record match evidence and contradictory evidence
Synthetic candidates use “North Sample Studio” and “北方示例工作室”. A staff translation note alone does not establish one organisation. The fixture accepts a customer-confirmed relationship to internal organisation ORG-17 as sufficient match evidence. A third record with similar wording belongs to ORG-18 and stays separate. Preserve each submitted display name so staff can recognise the enquiry later.
| Candidate | Evidence | Conflict | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| L-76 / L-77 | Staff says names translate | No confirmed organisation link | Review; no automatic merge |
| L-76 / L-77 after confirmation | Customer confirms ORG-17 | None in supplied fixture | Link to ORG-17; retain aliases |
| L-78 | Confirmed ORG-18 | Similar name; different organisation | Keep separate |
Move from name similarity to a supported relationship
- Keep submitted names
- Collect relationship evidence
- Check contradictory identifiers
- Record link and accepted aliases
Conflicting organisation links block consolidation until the responsible data owner resolves them.
Can L-78 join ORG-17 because its English name differs by one word?
Show the worked answer
No. Its confirmed ORG-18 relationship contradicts that merge. Name similarity does not override the evidence.
This example avoids claiming a legal entity-verification method. The evidence threshold is synthetic and must fit the actual CRM entity model.