Treat the names as candidates, not proof
Name similarity creates an identity question but does not authorise consolidation.
Operational proof · Establishment frame
The agent uses controlled identity evidence to prevent a plausible but statistically damaging merge.
Live request
Reconcile “Prime Alloy Components Pvt Ltd” and “Prime Alloy Components Unit-II”. Are these duplicate establishment records?
resolve_establishment_identity + get_classification_historyReturned evidence
DP-EST-07211DP-EST-10984Common enterprise · separate unitDifferent industrial plotsSeparately reportableDO NOT MERGEAgent workflow
Name similarity creates an identity question but does not authorise consolidation.
Registration reference, address, industrial plot, unit relationship, historical returns and classification are retrieved for both candidates.
Evidence shows Unit-II belongs to the same enterprise but operates as a separately reportable establishment with its own location and return history.
The agent recommends preserving separate establishment IDs and recording the parent-enterprise relationship for analysis.
The workflow prevents an incorrect semantic merge that could distort establishment counts, employment and industrial aggregates.
Control boundary
Evidence artifact
Synthetic identity case where two similar names resolve to separately reportable units under a common enterprise.
Primewayz industrial statistical intelligence