Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" is a real answer.
1
In plain terms. Should I merge two sign-up records for the same renter at JPCo? Our system found a renter named Victoria with the exact same unusual email address on two different records — but her name was typed two different ways (a short version vs. her full legal name), so it played it safe and kept them as separate people. I think they're the same person.
The full question, as raised
identity_contact_match_refused (org_jpco): existing person pers_22d521af-cd4a-450b-8eaa-87bba9a462d5 ('Victoria A. Salazar', source=backfill, email victotoriasalazar@gmail.com) vs newly minted pers_85e89652-3739-4bf5-b5cc-61faa5fc56d9 ('Victoria Alexandra Salazar Castillo', source=inbound via ensurePersonForProspect). Exact email match including the 'victotoria' typo, and matching firstName; reuseAllowedByName/isNameCompatiblePerField refused on lastName ('A. Salazar' vs 'Alexandra Salazar Castillo') because the comparator only tolerates a dropped single-letter middle-initial token, not a compound/double-surname subset match (paternal+maternal surname pattern). PR #17394 (merged this morning, exact-full-name-same-home rule) does not cover this case — it explicitly excludes names differing by more than one token. Precedent: block b90699227 (org_a3376147/Situs Group) — Gera said 'merge them into one record' for a similar refusal. Related design direction: block b91361538 (today) — Gera described a confidence-score + manual-approve UI for ambiguous identity matches, not yet built. Should pers_85e89652 be merged into pers_22d521af now, or held?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Merge the two records into one Same unusual email (same typo), same first name, and the two last-name spellings match a known pattern (short form vs. full legal name) — strong signs it's the same renter. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Looked up both records directly: identical email including an unusual typo, matching first name, and a last name that differs only because one record used a short form and the other a full legal name. Checked the matching code — it's deliberately built to never guess on a name mismatch (it once glued two different people together, which is why it's careful). Checked for work already in flight — Gera already asked for a smarter review-and-approve feature for exactly this case (not built yet) and separately okayed a merge for a similar past case — so instead of guessing or changing the matching rule myself, I'm asking before touching two real people's records.