The operating problem
Start with an intake conflict reviewer requesting additional party information. A successful handoff produces a verified list of names and related entities for conflict searching. Define the accountable owner before connecting systems. Name similarity is an investigative lead, not proof of identity or conflict. A source event is a request to evaluate the current state; it is not permission to make an irreversible change.
Use your own working copy
The free workbook for this process opens in a browser and works offline after download. It includes editable checks and notes, a text export, and a print view. It is a planning resource: it does not send messages, read account data, or run actions in business systems. No vendor account is needed to use the workbook.
Map the process
1. Register known party facts
Keep original names, supplied aliases, entity references, and the source of each fact.
2. Normalize search terms
Generate spelling and formatting variants without replacing the original name.
3. Gather approved research references
Use only permitted sources and record provenance for possible related entities.
4. Verify candidate relationships
A reviewer confirms or rejects aliases and links using the available evidence.
5. Update the search packet
Add verified terms and clearly label unresolved candidates for the conflict reviewer.
Information to check
These reference fields describe the process. Use invented values while planning. Keep real records in an appropriate private system; the public website does not need them.
| Reference field | Working record | Check before progressing |
|---|---|---|
| party_reference | party_reference | Resolve the stable source reference in the correct client, entity, and engagement. |
| original_name | original_name | Resolve the stable source reference in the correct client, entity, and engagement. |
| candidate_alias | candidate_alias | Validate the date, timezone, and approved reporting or review period. |
| verification_source | verification_source | Resolve the stable source reference in the correct client, entity, and engagement. |
Acceptance checks
- A similar name is never merged automatically.
- An unverified relationship remains visibly uncertain.
- A repeated source event creates only one current review task.
- A changed source version invalidates an earlier approval.
Walk through a successful example, a duplicate, a missing item, an incorrect match, and an interrupted handoff with synthetic records. Record the expected result, observed result, owner, and recovery action. Checklists record your work; checking a box does not establish that an external action happened.
Ownership and review
Name the person responsible for the process and the person who can resolve an exception. Define which decisions require qualified professional review. Use stable references, limit access to private records, and document when work must stop. Educational material does not establish legal, accounting, tax, security, or regulatory compliance.
Run a measured pilot
Choose a small, reversible sample. Measure handling time, waiting time, review, rework, and errors before changing the process. Include the effort of maintaining the new method. Expand only when the observed result meets your acceptance criteria; a longer checklist is not proof of improved performance.
Use the free workflow planner to define your next step, or compare the assumptions in the opportunity calculator.