Entrepreneur Resources Your source for small business information
Two exports can contain the same CRM record and different company names. Choosing a value is easier when you can see both versions, where they came from and the reason for your decision. A small worksheet is enough to start.
Keep the evidence beside the value
Keep the original exports unchanged. In a working sheet, give each observed value these columns: source system, record ID, snapshot timestamp, source row, field, value, classification and next decision. Use a filename and line reference for the source row so someone else can find it.
Write down your identity rule before grouping rows. If record IDs are unique only within a system, use the pair of source system and record ID. Record D02 in system alpha is not automatically the same record as D02 in system beta. A missing ID stays unresolved rather than becoming a match by guesswork.
Classify before choosing
Use these labels for the cases you are comparing:
- Repeated record: the same system and ID, with the same captured values. Retain the evidence and mark the repetition for review.
- Same-record conflict: the same system and ID, but a field has competing values. Put each value on its own worksheet row.
- Possible match: different IDs or systems, with a matching name or email after consistent case/space cleanup. Keep the records distinct while checking the candidate link.
A shared email or matching name is a reason to look, not a reason to merge. If only the snapshot differs, record a later observation of unchanged fields. A snapshot timestamp locates the evidence; it does not establish when a company field changed or which value should win.
Work through one conflict
Here is a company-field example from a checked fictional demonstration:
| System | Record ID | Snapshot UTC | Source row | Company value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| alpha | D02 | 2026-10-01 09:00 | snapshot_a.csv:3 | Birch Fiction |
| alpha | D02 | 2026-10-02 09:00 | snapshot_b.csv:3 | Birch Renamed Fiction |
The system and ID agree, so label both worksheet rows same-record conflict. The two company values remain visible.
Fill the next-decision column with: Confirm the company value with the record owner before import. The reason is that neither row supplies field-level change evidence or an agreed rule authorizing an overwrite. Selecting the October 2 value solely because its snapshot is later would add an assumption.
If the owner confirms a rename and its effective date, record that confirmation and the chosen value in the worksheet. If the answer is still unclear, leave the decision open. Either result gives the next reviewer a clear handoff.
For a different pair of records sharing a mailbox, the classification would be possible match. Check the separate identities before considering a merge; do not reuse the same-record decision merely because the email agrees.
Leave a decision someone can follow
Add the decision owner, supporting evidence and status to the worksheet. When a choice is made, retain both original values and explain why the selected value is suitable for this import. Keep source records and contact restrictions intact while resolving the company field.
For your next overlapping export, start with one conflicting field. Identify the record, attach both source references, classify the disagreement and write the next decision with its reason. That is a usable review worksheet even before you choose a winner.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and checked against the linked example.
Rivet & Wren prepares inspectable decision worksheets and workflow demonstrations for data and operations teams. It makes source evidence and the reasons for a decision clear.
