This protocol treats one candidate account pair independently coded by two reviewers as the unit of analysis and keeps missing, conflicted, and unresolved evidence visible.
Research question and decision use
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution asks how to measure how consistently reviewers classify possible duplicate accounts when shown the same bounded evidence packet. For this workflow, the result supports a bounded operating review and does not claim causation, legal compliance, or performance beyond the observed sample.
Population and observation unit
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution defines the observation unit as one candidate account pair independently coded by two reviewers. For this workflow, freeze an eligible population, sampling window, inclusion rule, exclusion rule, and duplicate-handling rule before reviewing outcomes.
Data dictionary and evidence lineage
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution uses a versioned data dictionary. For this workflow, capture candidate IDs, domains, legal names, locations, parent evidence, source links, similarity signals, reviewer codes, adjudication, and retained-record decision. Each coded value points to its original artifact, observer, observation time, and permitted transformation.
Analysis plan
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution compares evidence pattern, account segment, reviewer pair, initial agreement, and adjudicated outcome. For this workflow, report counts beside rates, preserve unknown and conflicted states, and show medians and ranges where elapsed time is relevant.
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution predefines the primary outcome. For this workflow, the primary outcome is exact agreement among independent reviewers before adjudication. Label secondary comparisons exploratory and disclose when a result depends on one source.
Reliability and reviewer agreement
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution uses two independent reviewers on a blinded overlap sample. For this workflow, for one candidate account pair independently coded by two reviewers, publish coding rules for evidence pattern, account segment, reviewer pair, initial agreement, and adjudicated outcome, initial agreement, adjudication count, and rule changes so apparent precision does not hide interpretation.
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution tests record reconstruction. For this workflow, a quality sample must reopen candidate IDs, domains, legal names, locations, parent evidence, source links, similarity signals, reviewer codes, adjudication, and retained-record decision and reproduce the code without relying on the original reviewer’s private notes.
Safety, privacy, and limits
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution minimizes personal and commercially sensitive data. For this workflow, represent one candidate account pair independently coded by two reviewers with a stable study key, restrict raw candidate IDs, domains, legal names, locations, parent evidence, source links, similarity signals, reviewer codes, adjudication, and retained-record decision, separate access from analysis, and publish results grouped by evidence pattern, account segment, reviewer pair, initial agreement, and adjudicated outcome.
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution states the limits beside every finding. For this workflow, parent-subsidiary relationships, franchises, rebrands, and shared domains are coded separately from true duplicate legal entities. Selection, changing systems, timestamp ambiguity, and reviewer learning may also constrain interpretation.
Source interpretation
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution uses public guidance as a control framework. For this workflow, FTC and FCC material frames communication boundaries around one candidate account pair independently coded by two reviewers; NIST and CISA material frames evidence, privacy, access, and incident practices. None supplies the measured result for evidence pattern, account segment, reviewer pair, initial agreement, and adjudicated outcome.
Reporting template
Reviewer Consistency in Duplicate Account Resolution reports the frozen window, eligible count, exclusions, missing data, source coverage, outcome distribution, reviewer agreement, sensitivity checks, and counterexamples. For this workflow, report agreement both with and without candidate pairs that lack a verified domain or legal-name source. Separate observed facts from interpretation and give proposed changes an owner, review date, and reversal condition.
Sources
Apply the operating question
Use the finding to define one source, output, review owner, and exception path inside a real workflow.
Discuss the workflow