Do not use a shared inbox as a person ID
Synthetic leads L-65 and L-66 both use procurement@example.invalid. One identifies contact Ada and the other identifies Bo, both at organisation ORG-8. The fixture permits a shared endpoint and distinct contacts. Link both to the same organisation without merging the people. L-67 uses the same endpoint but names ORG-9, so its organisation relationship needs clarification before any consolidation.
| Lead | Person / organisation | Endpoint | Identity action |
|---|---|---|---|
| L-65 | Ada / ORG-8 | procurement@example.invalid | Retain contact Ada |
| L-66 | Bo / ORG-8 | procurement@example.invalid | Retain Bo; share ORG-8 link |
| L-67 | Cy / ORG-9 claimed | procurement@example.invalid | Review organisation relationship |
Resolve organisation and person separately
- Identify endpoint type
- Compare person evidence
- Compare organisation relationship
- Link or review without forced merge
A matching inbox is a candidate signal, not proof of one individual. Do not transfer one contact’s activities to another based on it alone.
How many known contacts belong to ORG-8 in this fixture?
Show the worked answer
Two: Ada and Bo. Cy’s ORG-9 claim is unresolved and must not be counted as an ORG-8 contact.
All identifiers and example.invalid addresses are fictional. This differs from finding normalised email duplicates: the task is deciding what entity a match represents.