Open a review case while keeping both records intact
Give the collision its own reference and record the two candidate record IDs. Assign one reviewer and note what raised the question: a matching address, a familiar name, or a reply already visible elsewhere. A flag means possible duplicate; it is not a finding.
Keep both source records available during review. Save their original arrival times, sources, owners, and thread references. If two staff members are about to answer the same apparent request, agree on one person to coordinate while the reviewer checks it. Do not let a data cleanup create two conflicting answers or leave a homeowner waiting without an owner.
Compare the person, the property, and the request separately
Start with three questions. Are these the same people? Are they discussing the same property? Are they asking the agency to do the same work? A match at only one level is insufficient. Keep uncertainty visible rather than turning a likely match into a confirmed identity.
- Person: compare the names used in the actual conversations and the replying addresses. A shared mailbox does not identify a single person.
- Property: compare the full property description, including a unit when relevant. Similar street names and omitted units can hide different homes.
- Request: read what each person wants and when. A new property, changed ownership, or a later request may need a separate opportunity even for the same homeowner.
Use agency-approved records to resolve a conflict. Avoid collecting additional personal details merely to make a spreadsheet match.
Use a decision table instead of one automatic match rule
| What matches | What needs checking | Suggested record decision |
|---|---|---|
| Same person, property, and continuing thread | Whether one entry is simply an extra copy of the reply | Choose one working opportunity; retain both source references. |
| Same email, different names | Whether household members share the mailbox | Keep separate people until their relationship is confirmed. |
| Same address, different people | Ownership, occupancy, or separate units | Do not combine based on the address alone. |
| Same person, different properties | Which request belongs to which property | Keep separate property opportunities with a person-level link where useful. |
| Same person and property, later conversation | Whether the homeowner restarted the earlier request or raised a new one | Reopen or create a linked opportunity according to the documented request. |
| Similar spelling, incomplete address | Whether reliable evidence actually identifies a match | Leave unresolved; retain both records and set a review action. |
Scroll across to read every column.
These are suggested agency review decisions, not automatic Homefield features.
Preserve the evidence behind a confirmed match
A useful decision note states what the reviewer checked and what happens to each record. For example: Illustrative case: Records A104 and A118 contain the same ongoing request for the same property. A104 remains the working opportunity. A118 remains linked as a second source entry. Owner confirmed: Jordan. Both thread references retained. This example describes a fictional record review.
If your approved system supports combining records, first check what it retains and what it overwrites. Otherwise, use a cross-reference instead. Preserve differing contact preferences and stop requests for review; do not let the newest imported record silently erase them. Record the decision date and reviewer so another person can explain the change later.
Resolve ownership without rewriting the history
After the identity decision, settle the work decision: who answers, which request is active, and which record the team should open next. Keep original source and arrival information intact even if an agency chooses one working record. A cleanup should not make the conversation appear to have started with whichever entry survived.
When Homefield is involved, use its dashboard thread and the agent's email copy to inspect what was actually said. This checklist is a workflow for your agency's records; it does not describe an automatic duplicate-merging tool. For everyday ownership and reply handling after the review, use the team reply-management guide.
Keep a short collision log with a reversible outcome
The downloadable worksheet separates the evidence from the decision. Complete one row per collision, using record references instead of copying entire email conversations. Useful outcomes are same opportunity, related but separate, different records, and unresolved.
Before closing the row, confirm that both original IDs can still be found, the active owner knows the decision, and an unresolved case has a next action. If later evidence changes the result, add a correction note rather than deleting the first review. That makes a mistaken match recoverable and keeps the homeowner's actual request at the center of the process.