Prove duplication beyond matching names
Synthetic records B-M1 and B-M2 belong to the same verified member and exact occurrence. Source evidence confirms one intended booking. B-M1 is checked in with one held allocation; B-M2 is unmarked with another held allocation. Keep B-M1, close B-M2 as duplicate, and reverse only B-M2’s held line. Neither has settled consumption.
| Record | Evidence / state | Held before | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| B-M1 | Verified member / checked in | 1 | Survive; retain held 1 |
| B-M2 | Same intent / unmarked | 1 | Close duplicate; return 1 |
| Link M-1 | B-M2 → B-M1 | No own allocation | Keep trace to survivor |
Consolidate identity, then reconcile effects
- Confirm same member, occurrence and booking intent from evidence.
- Select B-M1 as survivor and record B-M2’s duplicate closure.
- Reverse B-M2’s held allocation and retire its unsent reminders while retaining its history.
Two legitimate participant lines or repeated services are not duplicates. If either usage already settled, reconcile that entry separately before closing records.
A package had 3 available and 2 held before resolution. What remains?
Show the worked answer
4 available and 1 held, still five accounted sessions. Closing both bookings would remove the verified attendance; keeping both would preserve a duplicate hold.
Old links should resolve to the survivor or a clear duplicate record, enabling staff to explain the returned unit.