Two bank records share the same normalized reference

Material amount: EUR 1800.00
Review priority: MEDIUM
Demo owner: Unassigned
Open at snapshot: 1 days
Case version: v1 · Frozen

Interactive review rehearsal. Inspect evidence and prepare an unsaved next-step packet. The shared demo stays read-only. Leaving or reloading this case clears your rehearsal.

Investigate the exception

Preserved deterministic finding

Disambiguate two candidates before selecting either.

Two equal bank candidates remain after reference normalization. The tie is intentionally ambiguous and no match was created.

Why this case needs attention

Conflicting evidence and no assigned reviewer. The deterministic tie must remain visible.

psp-po-8530bank-line-910bank-line-911

Source record IDs are preserved; this view does not rerun or alter matching rules.

Evidence desk

Inspect the values. Follow their origin.

0/2 reviewed

Select a field to inspect its lineage. Marking it reviewed includes it in your rehearsal packet; it does not validate or repair the source.

Bank

First bank reference

PO8530

Source lineage: Meridian EUR operating account · row 6 · reference
Record: bank-line-910
Canonical field: reference
Evidence reference: ev-duplicate-a

I reviewed this field and its source.Local rehearsal only; not an audit event.

Review lens

Inspect both original bank reference values.
Do not interpret normalized-reference equality as proof of a duplicate transaction.

Prewritten advisory example · Not a live AI call

Working hypothesis, not a conclusion.

conflicted evidence

Suggested pattern: duplicate. Evidence strength describes support, not a probability of correctness.

Both bank references normalize to the same payout identifier.

What is still unknown

The current sources do not establish whether one bank row is a duplicate or a separate event.

Next checks suggested by the example

Compare bank booking identifiers and source statuses for both rows.

A unique bank event identifier is needed before either candidate can be selected.

Ready to outline the next step?
Missing evidence stays visible in the review packet.