The research question
A search result is a lead, not a completed identification. Before connecting an article, record, or screening result to a company or person, establish why it concerns the intended subject. This lesson provides a simple review method for customers and researchers handling similar names or incomplete details.
Create a reference identity
For a company, record its legal name, jurisdiction, available registration number, and known addresses. Keep former names and trading names in separate fields with their sources. For an individual, record the name and relevant company association together with the identifying details supplied for the assignment.
AsiaBIS individual checks require an associated company and either date of birth or ID number, in addition to the person's name. The purpose of supplying these details is to support research on the intended person. Do not invent missing identifiers or treat an assumed age as a confirmed date of birth.
Compare the result, not just the headline
When reviewing a result, extract the identifying details it actually contains. Compare name, entity type, location, company association, dates, and available identifiers. Document supporting and conflicting details. If the result supplies only a common name, keep the relationship unresolved until sufficient evidence is available.
OFAC's own guidance for reviewing potential sanctions-list matches asks users to compare the type of subject and the full identifying information, including details such as address, nationality, and date of birth where relevant. This illustrates an identity-matching method; it is not a complete guide to sanctions obligations. OFAC: reviewing a potential match
Keep an ambiguous lead ambiguous
Imagine two people with the same transliterated name. An article names one but gives no employer or identifier. A separate company filing names the other. Combining those documents without additional evidence would create a relationship neither source establishes. Write “identity not resolved” and explain what information would help.
A spelling variation should prompt further comparison, not immediate rejection or acceptance. Record the original-language name where available and preserve the version used in the source. Your notes should allow another reviewer to reproduce the comparison without relying on your memory.
Write the finding with its level of certainty
As a working review method, separate confirmed matches, unresolved candidates, and excluded results, with reasons for each classification. This is a practical note-taking approach, not a substitute for the assignment's agreed methodology. Escalate unresolved material results for review rather than silently deleting them.
Before delivering a summary, check that every potentially adverse finding has an explicit connection to the subject. If identification remains uncertain, preserve that limitation in the wording. Additional research can then target the missing link rather than repeating a broad search without a defined purpose.
What to take away
- Use a reference identity before reviewing results.
- Compare available identifiers, including conflicting details.
- An unresolved name match should remain unresolved in the summary.