Detailed guidance
Evidence and review concepts
These articles explain the reasoning behind UONE outputs without exposing security-sensitive implementation details.
Input quality and identity context
Complete, accurate input gives the review more context for separating people or companies with similar names. More fields do not guarantee a match; they reduce avoidable ambiguity when the information is reliable.
Reference numbers versus search evidence
An internal account, card, or reference number is valuable for reconnecting an output to the source record. Because it is generally not public identity evidence, UONE should not imply that it drives web matching.
How evidence is evaluated
A possible finding is considered alongside the submitted identity context, the nature of the source, consistency across clues, and contradictions. A visible web page alone is not sufficient reason to present a finding as certain.
Understanding evidence levels
An evidence-level category and ordinal index help reviewers compare the strength and consistency of available evidence. They are not probabilities, accuracy rates, or statistical likelihoods and do not convert a possible match into a verified legal identity.
Why fields remain blank
A blank output can mean that no sufficiently relevant public evidence was available, that clues conflicted, or that presenting a value would create too much risk of error. Blank is an intentional quality outcome, not necessarily a system failure.
Manual review and conflicting evidence
Manual review is recommended when clues are incomplete, names are common, countries or employers conflict, or sources appear outdated. The reviewer should compare all context and avoid resolving uncertainty by assumption.
Search duration and difficult records
Some records can be assessed quickly while others require more evidence checks or encounter temporary source limitations. Campaign duration therefore depends on the mix of records, not only the total row count.
International and cross-border clues
A profile, employer, phone, or location connected with another country may be useful context but does not prove relocation or current residence. Cross-border use may create additional legal obligations for the submitting organisation.
Individuals and company-related records
Person-focused evidence and company-related evidence should not be interpreted in the same way. A company page may support an employment clue, while a personal profile requires separate identity consistency before it can support a person-level finding.
Reading the export responsibly
Review the original fields, possible new information, evidence links, evidence-level category, and review status together. Keep exports access-controlled, preserve the internal reference, and document any decision made after additional human review.
Limits of public information
Public information can be incomplete, duplicated, outdated, self-published, or associated with another person. UONE is designed to surface evidence responsibly, not to guarantee completeness or replace authorised verification methods.
Reporting a suspected issue
Preserve the campaign and record reference, note the affected output field, and use the approved support channel. Avoid pasting passwords, verification codes, or unnecessary submitted-record data into ordinary email or chat messages.
Looking for a quick answer?
Use the FAQ for short product questions or Workspace Guidance for exact operational steps.
Open FAQBusiness guidance, not infrastructure instructions
The Knowledge Centre explains how to prepare reliable information, understand evidence, review uncertainty, and improve future campaigns. Internal architecture and configuration are deliberately excluded from public guidance.
Continue exploring
Related public guidance
Explore the policy or operational page that adds context to this guidance.