Entity identity and authority checklist

Use this as a review record

Use this checklist for a priority organization, person, product, brand, or location. It is a review of identity and evidence gaps, not a score for “authority.” Mark a check as applicable, not applicable, complete, gap, or needs confirmation; capture the evidence, owner, next action, and recheck trigger for each gap.

Complete the entity fact record before resolving conflicts. Use the entity reconciliation log for a material contradictory display. Use the entity evidence and independent recognition guide when the work is to create independently useful evidence rather than add more profiles.

Choose what to resolve first

Start with a material identity conflict when it could cause a consequential wrong decision or needs a time-sensitive correction. Preserve the observation, confirm the approved fact in the fact record, correct the controlled source or use the appropriate outside path, and recheck before treating routine consistency work as complete. When no material conflict is open, work through the applicable identity and relationship checks for the subject.

Independent recognition is not a universal next step. Consider it only where an identified reader, decision, or recognition goal calls for independently useful evidence; defer profile expansion or outreach that does not meet that condition. The immediate review is sufficient when applicable checks have an observable result and material conflicts have a correction path and recheck condition.

Review register

Copy this compact register into the system that owns the work. Link a row to the fact record or reconciliation log when more context is needed.

Define the entity

1. Priority subject is defined. The record names the entity type and the reader, customer, regulatory, or system decision that could be affected by a wrong match.
2. Approved facts have one internal home. Preferred name, description, canonical URL, status, and material facts appear in the entity fact record with accountable owners.
3. Aliases have context. Legal, trading, translated, abbreviated, former, and misspelled names are labeled by role, language, and effective dates where needed.
4. Stable identifiers name their issuer. Registration, professional, catalog, model, and other identifiers include the issuing system and exact value.
5. Canonical public URL is durable. The record explains redirects and transition handling when a public reference changes.
6. Likely collisions are documented. Namesakes or close alternatives include the facts that distinguish the intended entity.

Model relationships accurately

7. Parent, subsidiary, operator, and brand relationships are explicit. The record does not collapse related organizations into one subject.
8. Products, models, and variants are separated where their facts differ. Identifiers, availability, and lifecycle are not copied across distinct items without evidence.
9. Public people and roles are current and bounded. Relevant roles have an organization relationship and date or status when a former role could mislead.
10. Locations and service areas reflect actual functions. Do not create a public entity for a virtual office, internal unit, or service area that is not a distinct eligible location.
11. Transitions preserve history. Rebrands, acquisitions, closures, discontinuations, and successors have effective dates and relationship notes.
12. Markup reflects the governed record. Visible page facts, structured data, and identifiers describe the same intended subject; sameAs links have been checked as true identity matches.

Review controlled identity sources

13. Core first-party pages identify the subject directly. Appropriate organization, product, person, brand, or location pages state the material identity and relationship facts a reader needs.
14. Contact and operational facts match their purpose. Names, addresses, phone numbers, hours, availability, and roles are materially consistent across the relevant controlled contexts.
15. Frequent changes trace to a supplying system. The team can identify the source of a changing name, address, ownership, role, or product field.
16. Feeds, catalogs, and managed profiles are compared with the approved record. A result distinguishes a confirmed match, a contextual difference, and a material conflict.
17. Authorship and publisher relationships are accurate where relevant. Bylines or organizational descriptions do not imply unsupported expertise or current roles.
18. Managed listings follow the platform’s representation rules. An eligible profile represents the actual business, practitioner, department, or location rather than keyword coverage or a duplicate identity.

Evaluate source roles and independent evidence

19. Relevant outside sources are selected by the reader’s question. The review explains why a registry, publication, database, partner, review, or community source matters for the fact being assessed.
20. Source control is recorded. Each source is identified as controlled, managed under platform rules, independently published, regulatory, or another relevant model.
21. Independent evidence is not confused with first-party consistency. Copied profiles, syndicated releases, and organization-supplied descriptions are not counted as independent confirmation.
22. The entity contributes something independently useful when recognition is a goal. Record an inspectable method, dataset, expert explanation, comparison, or primary evidence and its limitations; do not use profile repetition as the plan.
23. Distribution respects audience and editorial control. Outreach states why the material is useful and does not request deceptive, undisclosed, or promotional treatment.
24. Community and knowledge-base work follows project rules. Wikipedia, Wikidata, knowledge-panel, and similar requests use their documented evidence, eligibility, disclosure, and correction paths; no inclusion is assumed.

Reconcile and maintain material conflicts

25. Material conflicts are preserved before correction. The reconciliation log contains the observed value, conditions, approved fact, evidence, source control, and likely supplying system.
26. Priority follows consequence and urgency. Severity reflects the likely decision impact and time sensitivity, not source prestige or ownership; every open material conflict has an owner, correction path, recheck condition, and documented outcome.

Complete the review

The review is complete when applicable checks have an observable result and all gaps have an owner and next action. “Not applicable” needs a short reason. Do not mark a source as independently supportive merely because it mentions the entity, and do not mark a correction complete until the original source or system has been rechecked.

Read the Entity identity & authority guide for the distinctions behind the review. Use the independent-recognition guide for a contribution that others can evaluate on its merits.