Base Name Conflicting LE Suffix Any Address

This rule is skipped for records that have a jurisdiction code (legal_entity_jurisdiction_code).

 

 

Field	Value
Status and Priority	See central list
Confidence Level	High
Match Reason	Changes based on context

 

 

 

Summary

This flow determines the best legal entity match when an input record has a base name conflicting LE suffix match (record and candidate names have different LE suffixes, like LTD and INC) and any valid address component match. The process follows three main steps: candidate retrieval, evaluation, and final selection.

Note that the following cases will not get evaluated by this rule: Record and candidate both have no LE suffix.One of record or candidate have LE suffix and the other doesn’t.These cases will get evaluated in other matching rules.

This rule uses Matched Attributes (MAs). For additional information, see this article.

Match Logic

Step 1 - Valid Candidates Retrieval

Gather all candidates where both of the conditions below apply:

• legal_name_conflicting_le_suffix or trading_name_conflicting_le_suffix MAs are available.

• At least one of the address-related MAs are present: registered_addressline, registered_zip_postal_code, registered_city, registered_state, registered_country, non_registered_addressline, non_registered_zip_postal_code, non_registered_city, non_registered_state, non_registered_country.

If the list has at least one valid candidate, the flow proceeds to the next step. Otherwise, the flow ends.

Step 2 - Valid Candidates Evaluation

In this step the list of valid candidates is ordered based on the following data points:

1. Address similarity.

2. Jurisdiction country code.

3. Active status.

4. Jurisdiction state code.

Address Similarity

We are using combinations of address-related MAs available per candidate to understand the level of address similarity with the pipeline record.

Each condition applies consistently with either the registered_ or the non_registered_ prefix (if the prefix is registered_ then all MAs in the same condition should also be registered_).

1. Same address - the record and candidate have the same address.

   1. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state + <prefix>_country.

   2. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_country.

   3. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_state + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_country.

   4. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_country.

   5. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_country.

2. Similar area - the addresses of the record and candidate are in the same area.

   1. <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state + <prefix>_country.

   2. <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_country.

   3. <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_country.

   4. <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state + <prefix>_country.

3. Similar address no country - the addresses of the record and candidate have substantial similarities but the country is not matching for some reason (in most cases it is related to parsing/normalization issues).

   1. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state.

   2. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city.

   3. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_state + <prefix>_city.

   4. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_zip_postal_code.

   5. <prefix>_addressline + <prefix>_city.

   6. <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state.

   7. <prefix>_zip_postal_code + <prefix>_city.

   8. <prefix>_city + <prefix>_state.

Any valid candidates that do not comply with the above categories are dropped.

Jurisdiction Country Code

Uses the existing jurisdiction_country_code MA, which compares the record’s country from the address with the candidate’s country from the jurisdiction code.

1. Yes - jurisdiction_country_code is available - indicate a better match with the record and used as a tiebreaker if there are multiple candidates with similar level of address.

2. No - jurisdiction_country_code is not available.

Active Status

Uses the values in the inactive field for each candidate as a tiebreaker according to the following priority:

1. Active - inactive=false.

2. Unknown - inactive=null.

3. Inactive - inactive=true.

Jurisdiction State Code

Uses the jurisdiction_state_code MA, which compares the record’s state/province from the address with the candidate’s subdivision from the jurisdiction code, if available. It is meant to show that the candidate is registered in the same subdivision as in the record’s address.

Here are the different options and their priorities:

1. Yes - jurisdiction_state_code is available - indicate a better match with the record and used as a tierbreaker if there are multiple candidates with similar level of address.

2. No - jurisdiction_state_code is not available.

Step 3 - Selecting the Best Match

Now that the list is ordered, it’s time to make a decision:

1. If there is no tie at the top of the list, the first-ranked candidate is selected as the best match.

   1. Match confidence: High.

   2. Match reason: “Base name conflicting LE suffix and <Address similarity category> - <Tiebreakers> tiebreaker/s”.

      1. Example 1: “Base name conflicting LE suffix and exact address - jurisdiction country tiebreaker”.

      2. Example 2: “Base name conflicting LE suffix and similar area - jurisdiction country, active status tiebreakers”.

2. If there is a tie at the top of the list, the home/branch relationship between the tied candidates is evaluated:

   1. If all of them are in the same home/branch family (either all of them have the same home company or all of them except for one, which is the home company itself), the home company gets selected.

      1. Match confidence: High.

      2. Match reason: “Home company of valid name and address candidates”.

   2. If the tied candidates are not in the same home/branch family, then the flow ends with no candidate selected.

Examples

Example 1: Clear Winner

In this case we have a clear winner and there is no tie at the top of the list because C1 has jurisdiction_state_code while C2 doesn’t have it.

 

 

 

Candidate	Rank	Address Similarity	Jurisdiction Country	Active Status	Jurisdiction State
C1	1	Same address	Yes	Active	Yes
C2	2	Same address	Yes	Active	No
C3	3	Similar area	Yes	Active	No
C4	3	Similar area	Yes	Active	No
C5	4	Similar area	Yes	Inactive	No
C6	5	Broad area	Yes	Unknown	No
C7	6	Broad area	Yes	Inactive	No
C8	6	Broad area	Yes	Inactive	No
C9	7	Broad area	No	Active	No
C10	8	Broad area	No	Unknown	No

 

 

 

Example 2: Tie at the Top

In this example, C1 doesn’t have the jurisdiction_state_code leverage, and it’s a tie with C2.

If both C1 and C2 have the same home, or one of them is the home of the other, then this home wins (even if the home is not on this list).

If C1 and C2 are not in the same home/branch family, then no candidate gets selected.

 

 

 

Candidate	Rank	Address Similarity	Jurisdiction Country	Active Status	Jurisdiction State
C1	1	Same address	Yes	Active	No
C2	1	Same address	Yes	Active	No
C3	2	Similar area	Yes	Active	No
C4	2	Similar area	Yes	Active	No
C5	3	Similar area	Yes	Inactive	No
C6	4	Broad area	Yes	Unknown	No
C7	5	Broad area	Yes	Inactive	No
C8	5	Broad area	Yes	Inactive	No
C9	6	Broad area	No	Active	No
C10	7	Broad area	No	Unknown	No