Set boundaries
Choose period, sector, territory and relevant relationship types. Exclude personal data unrelated to the question.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Map actors using public sources
An actor map is useful when relationships are sourced, dated and bounded.
Direct answer
How do you map an ecosystem without inventing connections?
Define the decision the map supports. Include only relevant entities, resolve identities and tie every edge to a dated source. Separate declared, observed and supposed relationships; check namesakes and role changes.
01 / Review method
Review method
Resolve identities
Compare official names, domains, stated profiles, dates and affiliations. Keep namesakes and former names separate until continuity is evidenced.
Source each edge
For every link record origin, date, role, direction and type: ownership, partnership, citation, mandate or mere co-occurrence.
Verify and deliver
Seek conflicting evidence, mark uncertain links and attach a readable dated table to the visual map.
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
Entity list
Reference name, variants, type, period and identification source.
Relationship table
Two entities, link type, direction, period and supporting URL.
Resolution log
Excluded namesakes, justified merges, name and affiliation changes.
Map version
Question, scope, date, confidence legend and decisions it can support.
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
Two similarly named entities are not necessarily connected; a shared address or officer alone may not establish control.
Decisive check
Separate legal identity, declared role, documented relationship and hypothesis. Check effective dates in registers and note what the register does not cover.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
Two organizations share an address
Record a dated, sourced address relation without concluding common control. Seek another relevant relation.
The same name appears in two registers
Check public identifiers and context; keep separate entities until identity is established.
Decision and review trail
Decision and review trail
What the check must help decide and what to retain so the choice can be reviewed.
Sufficient evidence
Separate legal identifiers, roles, declared links and observed links. A shared address, supplier or name does not establish control between actors.
Next decision
Map confirmed relations with their source and date; keep speculative edges out of the factual graph until corroborated.
OSINT / Official references
When connecting actors
Every link needs a type, source and date. Co-occurrence alone does not establish control or influence.
DATA INPI
Why start hereCheck a French registration or intellectual-property record.
Limit to rememberRead each registration or filing with its status, date and protection scope.
Read source entryEU Transparency Register
Why start hereReview a European interest-representation declaration.
Limit to rememberRegistrants provide their own data; absence and accuracy both require caution.
Read source entrySEC EDGAR
Why start hereRead a US securities filing and identify its filer.
Limit to rememberRead a filing with its period, form type and any amendments.
Read source entryDetailed inspection cases
Typical situations for preparing a check. They do not describe completed assignments or actual observations.
An old contract becomes a current relationship
What to inspect
Check named parties, stated duration, available amendments and document dates. Distinguish the relationship documented for a period from its possible continuation.
Decision and action
Date the connection on the map and indicate when continuity is unknown. A past relationship can remain relevant without being presented as a current role.
Record to retain
Keep the contract or public reference, dates, entities and continuity-check status.
A shared address becomes an assumed partnership
What to inspect
Examine address type, periods and sources connecting the actors. A registered address, building or shared provider alone does not establish an agreement between organisations.
Decision and action
Represent the observed address fact without adding an unsupported partnership edge. Seek explicit evidence before qualifying the relationship.
Record to retain
Keep addresses, dates, provenance and the distinction between observed proximity and established relationship.
An old relationship appears current
What to inspect
Look for dated confirmation of the relationship and its nature.
Decision and action
Separate current, historical and unconfirmed relationships.
Record to retain
Relationship type, period, sources and uncertainty.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Documented relationship
Does each edge specify relationship type, direction, period, source and status? Graph proximity or a shared address must not replace a relationship document.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Two entities share an address; the graph adds an ownership link without a supporting record.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Remove the unsupported ownership claim and label the shared address. Find evidence specific to the relationship.
Identity before merging
Were nodes matched using compatible identifiers and attributes? Keep namesakes separate and unknown relationships explicit rather than treating them as certain absence.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Nodes A and B share a name; identifiers and periods are missing.
- Declared state
- Not checked
- Decision and next check
- Retain two provisional nodes and an unknown mapping. A missing link does not establish no relationship.
Path and direct link
Is a path through an intermediary distinguished from a direct relationship? Check link type and period before summarising proximity.
Documentation consulted : W3C · Organization Ontology ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The graph retains A → B in 2020 and B → C in 2024; no direct A → C link is asserted.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- Path and direct link are distinguished. Check period overlap before interpreting a simultaneous path.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Document each link with direction, period and a specific record. Participation, funding and control are different relationships; visual proximity proves none of them.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Entity identifier
- Relationship / link direction
- Observed passage / value
- Reference period
- Limit / uncertainty
- Decision / next action
- Review owner
- Next review
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Does a social link prove partnership?
No. At most it shows a visible connection; relationship type requires more evidence.
How handle namesakes?
Keep separate records and seek matching public attributes before merging.
Map every person?
No. Include only actors needed for the decision and minimize personal detail.
When update?
After a documented change in role, control, domain or important source.
04 / Official references
Official references
Describe a context
Related checks
- Link a legal unit to its establishments
- LEI: legal identity and group relationship
- FTS: define the scope of an EU funding search
- EU register: restore the scope of financial figures
- HATVP: count records, objectives or contacts
- Wikidata: retain statements, qualifiers and references
- GeoJSON: inspect nesting before counting objects
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Establish relationships before drawing them
A map connects actors and organizations, but some arches only translate a proximity. Each relationship must correspond to a described and dated fact.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Defining the type of relationship, its orientation and its period. Keep the source of the link and distinguish membership, function, contract, quotation and simple co-currence.
Interpretation pitfalls
Graphic proximity may suggest an unproof influence or coordination. Two actors mentioned in a document are not necessarily directly linked.
Working record to retain
The relationship table contains actors, link type, date, source and limit. Visualization is accompanied by a legend that explains what each relationship means.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
A co-currence becomes a supposed relationship
The example below is pedagogical. It shows how to move from a document to a qualified proposal, preserving the context, the contradictory elements and the information that the research does not yet allow to establish.
Example context
Two actors appear in a report and are linked on a map. However, the document does not describe neither contract, neither membership, nor exchange between them.
Suggested approach
Back to the passage and specify the type of link actually established. Remove undocumented relationships or present them as separate assumptions. Check the other arches built by the same rule.
Conclusion and next step
The map represents qualified and sourced relationships. Visual proximity does not become an additional affirmation on the influence or coordination of the actors.
Questions for deeper practice
Should we show uncertain relationships?
They may be useful if their status is explicit and distinct from the established facts. The legend and the table of relationships should allow to understand uncertainty without graphic ambiguity.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Building relationships before their graphic representation
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Preparing actors, documents and periods. Defining the types of relationships planned as well as their direction and the necessary evidence for each.
02 / Carry out the approach
Report a table of relations with pass, date and reservation. Examine co-currencies and direct links separately. Then build the visualization with a legend corresponding to the documented categories.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If the relationship is hypothetical, present it in a separate status. A graphic proximity should not become an additional affirmation on the actors.
04 / Decide on the next step
The map is readable when each link can be explained and found. Lack of connection remains the boundaries of the corpus rather than general proof of absence of connection.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmit table, sources and graphic conventions. Changes in period or status can be integrated without losing the justification of the previous representations.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
A relationship table that justifies the map
The table indicates actors, type, direction, period and source of the link. Visualization takes these categories back and announces the hypothetical relationships in a separate status.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| The document explicitly describes a dated relationship. | The link can be represented according to the type actually established. | Keep the passage and indicate the period of the relationship. |
| The actors are only mentioned together. | The co-currence does not demonstrate a direct relationship. | Qualify this proximity separately or remove the non-supported link. |
| The representation suggests an undocumented causality. | The drawing adds an interpretation to the evidence table. | Revise legend, disposition and comment to preserve the scope of the facts. |
Reviewing the working document
The final verification starts from the relationships before the graphic positions. Each arthritis must be able to be explained with its room and its limit, without attributing additional meaning to the only visual proximity.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Establish relationships before drawing them
Point to clarify
The card should not add a relationship that the table does not document.
Before handing over
Identify types, directions, sources and significance of graphic conventions.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The links represent the qualified relationships in the table and their period. The hypotheses and co-currencies have a distinct status in the legend.