The challenge
A large constituent environment contained duplicate candidates, conflicting identifiers, invalid contact information, and attributes requiring judgment instead of automatic merging.
My contribution
- Triaged merge candidates using identifiers, contact attributes, and record-level evidence instead of relying on name matching alone.
- Reviewed exceptions and documented whether candidate records could be safely merged, needed manual investigation, or required another disposition.
- Supported broader CRM quality checks involving invalid emails, phone formatting, state values, and postal codes.
- Connected duplicate stewardship to the integrity of donor-history analysis and fundraising reporting.
Results and scope
A February 2026 review documented 965 initial candidates, 945 completed merges, six failures, and 14 cases in which the source record had already been deleted. These figures describe a specific reconciliation cycle; they do not imply all constituent duplicates across the CRM were resolved.
The decision rule
Make identity decisions traceable: when attributes conflict, preserve the exception for a person to review. Record stewardship is a quality-control process, not just a merge button.
Public portfolio summary only. Identifying details, clinical content, production screenshots, and confidential employer records are excluded. All diagrams and demo visuals are illustrative.