A name on its own is rarely conclusive. A common name will match dozens of people in any populated jurisdiction; an uncommon name may still match more than one. The work of confirming that a particular record refers to a particular person is the work of reading the name against everything else the record contains.

Date of birth is the most direct corroborator. A record that includes the day, month, and year of birth and matches a known date is, in most cases, the right person. A record that includes only month and year is weaker; only year, weaker still. The desk treats each level of date detail as a distinct standard of confidence.

Address is the second corroborator. A record that lists an address known to be associated with the principal (current, prior, or a registered address that has appeared elsewhere) raises the confidence in the match. An address that contradicts known addresses is a flag for the wrong person rather than for further investigation of the right one.

Professional context is the third. A record that places the named individual in a profession, sector, or institution known to be theirs is more likely to be the right person. A record that places them in an unrelated field is, more often, someone else with the same name.

· · ·

Family relationships, where they appear, are the fourth. A record that names a parent, sibling, or spouse known to the principal is strong evidence of correct identification. A record that names different relations under the same name is, in most cases, a different person.

The desk records the standard of confidence on each finding so the client knows what is presently held with high certainty and what is held provisionally. A reader who knows the standard knows how to use the material.

The work of reading this kind of signal is part of what the desk does for clients, and is done with the care the situation warrants.