Matching & deduplication
Merge true duplicates. Never merge variants.
Group supplier records that describe the same manufacturer product, keep variants that differ by a meaningful suffix apart, and record every relationship with its evidence.
Candidates in free checker · resolution on request
The problem
Two ways
matching fails
Under-matching leaves clutter. Over-matching is worse: it silently destroys the difference between products.
- 01
Cleaned strings that collide
Stripping spaces, dashes and suffixes makes DEMO-101-OPEN and DEMO-101-SEALED look identical. They are not.
- 02
Dimensions treated as identity
Equal bore, outside diameter and width narrow candidates. They do not prove two records are the same product.
- 03
Substitutes recorded as matches
A cross-brand alternative is a different product. Recording it as “same” hides an engineering decision nobody made.
Worked example
Typed relationships,
not a single “match” flag
Synthetic records showing the four relationship types the schema supports.
| Record A | Record B | Relationship | Why | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier X · SYN-88213 | DEMO-101-OPEN | same_identity_candidate | Designation + closure + maker supported | reviewed |
| DEMO-101-OPEN | DEMO-101-SEALED | variant | Same series, closure differs | reviewed |
| DEMO-101-OPEN | Synthetic Maker B · SB-25-12 | candidate_substitute | Dimensions align; cage, clearance unknown | proposed |
| DEMO-100-OPEN | DEMO-101-OPEN | supersession | Illustrative successor relationship | proposed |
Method
Identity first,
similarity second
Exact identity requires manufacturer plus full designation including meaningful variant information.
Normalize designations
Normalize formatting for comparison but keep the raw designation and all suffixes.
Block by manufacturer
Compare designations within a manufacturer, never across brands as identity.
Generate candidate groups
Same manufacturer + full designation → duplicate candidates for review.
Check discriminators
Closure, clearance, cage and precision differences split groups into variants.
Review, never auto-merge
Accepted relationships are recorded with evidence; nothing is deleted.
Outcome and limits
What you get — and what you don’t
A catalog in which each manufacturer product appears once, its supplier listings hang beneath it, and variants and substitutes are explicit, separate relationships.
| Detail | |
|---|---|
| Included | Duplicate candidate groups with reasons |
| Included | Variant splits based on discriminating attributes |
| Included | Typed relationships with evidence and review status |
| Included | No destructive merges |
| Not included | Interchangeability approval for substitutes |
| Not included | Matching purely on dimensions |
| Not included | Automatic deletion of records |
Delivery options
How it is delivered today
Related
Keep reading
Can I trust the checker’s duplicate groups?
They are review candidates: rows with the same manufacturer and the same normalized full designation. They are not confirmed duplicates and nothing is merged.
Do you provide cross-reference / interchange lists?
Not as approvals. We can record candidate substitutes with the attributes compared and the ones still unknown; the application decision stays with qualified engineers.
Too many rows per product?
Let’s separate them safely.
Run the checker to see duplicate candidates, then talk to us about resolving them with evidence.