Set the identity
Choose a primary name, real variants, role, scope and reference URL without inventing titles or relationships.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Build a verifiable entity profile
A well-described entity rests on consistent, verifiable public facts rather than repeated keywords.
Direct answer
What belongs in a useful entity profile?
A reference name, justified variants, precise description, verified public relationships and sources supporting each material claim. The profile becomes a control point for pages, public profiles and structured data.
01 / Review method
Review method
Connect evidence
Tie each distinctive fact to a dated public page, document or profile that can be checked.
Align surfaces
Compare homepage, profile, bylines, titles, links and Person or Organization markup with visible text.
Maintain consistency
Record changes to names, roles, locations and links; correct contradictions at their source.
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
Name and variants
Keep the canonical form and older names still needed for disambiguation.
Verified relationship
State the exact role and a public link for every organisation mentioned.
Dated source
Connect author, date, URL and confidence level to sensitive claims.
HTML agreement
Check that structured data describes facts visible on the page.
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
More profiles and structured data do not resolve a contradictory identity. An accurate entity record needs links to the pages and registers supporting it.
Decisive check
Compare name, role, domain, dates, variants and official links across visible pages, profiles and primary sources. Correct information at its source before marking up a claim.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
Two official sources use different names
Check dates, roles and continuity before choosing a primary name. Keep evidenced variants as alternate names without merging distinct entities.
A profile claims an unproven relationship
Separate membership, citation and mere proximity. Remove the unsourced claim and seek suitable public evidence before restoring it.
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
Reconcile names, identifiers, official site, profiles and registers through dated reciprocal links. A namesake or self-declared profile is insufficient to merge entities.
Next decision
Correct the official source and its references first. Keep confirmed, disputed and unknown relationships separate before publishing markup or entity records.
OSINT / Official references
When several names may refer to one entity
Start with register identifiers and keep jurisdictions separate.
Annuaire des Entreprises
Why start hereConnect a French name to a precise SIREN or SIRET.
Limit to rememberThis is an aggregator: check dates and the original register before drawing conclusions.
Read source entryEuropean e-Justice · Find a company
Why start hereSearch a company across interconnected European registers.
Limit to rememberCovered company forms and documents vary by national register; inspect the originating record.
Read source entrySEC EDGAR
Why start hereLink a US filer to its published securities filings.
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.
A brand is mistaken for a company
What to inspect
Compare trading name, legal unit, subsidiary and identifiers in the records.
Decision and action
Create distinct objects and a dated relationship when documented; do not automatically transfer brand properties to the company.
Record to retain
Object, identifier, relationship and supporting record.
A relationship is outdated
What to inspect
Find the source’s covered period and look for a documented change.
Decision and action
Retain history and the known effective date; avoid presenting a past relationship as current membership.
Record to retain
Historical relationship, effective dates and current verification status.
Two identities share a name
What to inspect
Compare identifiers, activity, location and official links before matching.
Decision and action
Keep separate profiles when correspondence remains uncertain.
Record to retain
Retained clues, differences and links supporting separation.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Identity and period
Do stable identifier, jurisdiction and period distinguish a namesake, establishment and organisation? Retain rejected matches and reasons.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Two same-name companies in different jurisdictions were merged without an identifier mapping.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Separate records and retain the rejection reason. Find a mapping document before any merge.
Conflicting attributes
Do incompatible values stay linked to their sources and dates? Do not merge past and current roles, or a registered address and an observed presence.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- A role in 2021 and a different role in 2024 remain two sourced, dated entries.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- The chronology preserves the earlier state. Revisit the period if an end date is found.
Identifier level
For Sirene, does matching distinguish legal units from establishments? Do not count two establishments as two legal units without comparing SIRENs.
Documentation consulted : Insee · Connaître le répertoire Sirene ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Two test SIRETs differ; their first nine digits, the SIREN, are identical.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- Count two establishments of one legal unit in this exercise. Retain each establishment and its period.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Match identifiers before merging two records. A shared name, address or logo is insufficient; retain aliases and the reason for the match.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Exact name
- Entity identifier
- Country / jurisdiction
- Claim to verify
- Independent source
- Decision / next action
- Review owner
- Next review
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Should every profile appear in sameAs?
No. Link only public profiles genuinely controlled or verified for the entity.
Does a name variant create another entity?
Not necessarily. Explain continuity when both names refer to the same person or organisation.
Should every social profile be listed?
No. Link only official, active profiles consistent with the entity described.
Can structured data fix a false biography?
No. Visible text, sources and markup must describe the same verifiable reality.
How should a role change be handled?
Date the new role, retain relevant historical context and update controlled pages, links and references.
04 / Official references
Official references
05 / Continue reading
Continue reading
Describe a context
DOCUMENTED REFERENCE
LEI: legal identity and group relationship
GLEIF separates identity data from accounting consolidation relationships. Establishing a group relationship therefore requires more than reading the entity’s name.
| Reference | Value or form | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| LEI | 20 | Unique 20-character alphanumeric identifier: preserve it in full. |
| Level 1 | Identity | Reference data, including official name and registered address. |
| Level 2 | Direct / ultimate parent | Direct and ultimate accounting consolidating parents; not a complete list of shareholders or beneficial owners. |
| NO_LEI | Reporting exception | Exception indicating that the parent has no LEI; this does not mean that no parent exists. |
Implication for the record
Record identity, relationship, period and exception separately. To match an LEI with a national register, compare registration number, jurisdiction and name. An LEI alone does not establish authorisation for a regulated activity.
No parent relationship appears: is the entity independent?
That observation is insufficient. Read reporting exceptions separately for direct and ultimate parents. Control by natural persons, non-consolidation, non-public information and a parent without an LEI are different situations. Keep the published reason.
Primary documentation
Documentation consulted on .
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Build an entity record without merging identities
Near names appear in several documents. The sheet must distinguish individuals or organizations and keep the indicators that justify an approximation.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Release identifiers, names, variants, addresses, dates and roles. Keep the original values and indicate their source before creating a standardized form.
Interpretation pitfalls
A shared address or similar name does not demonstrate your identity. An old data may belong to a period when the organization had a different situation.
Working record to retain
The file connects each attribute to a source and a date. The approaches are accompanied by a reason and an explicit level of uncertainty.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
Organization changes name during the study period
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
A document contains two names at different dates. A automatic merger would create a unique identity without keeping the change, while a total separation would hide continuity.
Suggested approach
Compare data and data documents. Keep original names, periods and evidence of the change. Discern documented continuity, new structure and still uncertain relationship.
Conclusion and next step
The list presents the variants with their dates and their sources. The subsequent searches can find each form without deleting the significant differences between the documents.
Questions for deeper practice
What is the name to use in the presentation of the results?
Choose a form suited to the period and to the document described. Present the useful variants and their relationship so that the reader can find the pieces and understand the name changes.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Organize attributes with their timeliness
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Assemble names, identifiers, coordinates, functions and documents. Keep the original values and their dates before building a standardized presentation.
02 / Carry out the approach
Associate each attribute to its source and period. Examine variants, changes and contradictions. Distinguish identity, relationship and simple proximity between the objects mentioned.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If two values describe different periods, keep them with their chronology. The search for a unique current value should not delete the useful historical information.
04 / Decide on the next step
The file is exploitable when attributes and approximations are traceable. Unknown remains separated from confirmed values and correspondence assumptions.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmitting files, sources and normalization rules. Future add-ons must be able to enrich the identity without silently fusioning homonyms or changing the initial data.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
A list of dated and derived attributes
The sheet associates each value to a source, a period and a status. It retains original names, variants and approximation indications before any standardized presentation.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| A stable identifier confirms the correspondence. | The approximation is supported for the documents and periods examined. | Keep the original attributes and explain the documented changes. |
| Two names describe different periods. | The difference can reflect a change rather than a mistake. | Build a chronology and preserve the research variants. |
| A common address is the only indicator. | Nearness is not enough to establish a identity. | Keep the objects separate and search for a distinctive attribute. |
Reviewing the working document
The final verification compares the periods and origin of each field. A current file should not delete the historical attributes necessary to understand the documents and their correspondences.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Build an entity record without merging identities
Point to clarify
An attribute without date can hide a change rather than a contradiction.
Before handing over
Identifiers, chronology and status of attributes before transmission.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The values are linked to their sources and periods. Identity variants remain preserved and uncertain approximations are not presented as confirmed.