Is a matching title enough to merge rows?
No. Compare final URL, item identity, visible options, and evidence context.
Use one row to produce a traceable keep-or-merge decision that another reviewer can reproduce.
A reconciliation guide for duplicate-looking rows, with keep, merge, split, and unresolved decisions supported by field-level evidence.
Quick FAQ
No. Compare final URL, item identity, visible options, and evidence context.
Preserve the redirect or replacement history before choosing the surviving row.
They explain what was reviewed and prevent useful context from disappearing silently.
Record fields
For this duplicate row reconciliation, each field preserves a different part of the audit trail so a later reviewer can distinguish evidence from an unresolved question.
Review path
This path protects row identity first, then assembles a traceable keep-or-merge decision; the order makes a later source change visible instead of silently overwriting it.
Decision states
Decision state 1: exact duplicate must remain explicit in the saved record.
Decision state 2: same item, different option must remain explicit in the saved record.
Decision state 3: redirected replacement must remain explicit in the saved record.
Decision state 4: unresolved lookalike must remain explicit in the saved record.
Reusable output
A second reviewer should be able to retrace the source, compare the saved fields, and understand why the decision remains settled or open.
Required evidence 1: candidate row pair must remain explicit in the saved record.
Required evidence 2: matching identity fields must remain explicit in the saved record.
Required evidence 3: conflicting fields must remain explicit in the saved record.
Required evidence 4: keep, merge, split, or unresolved must remain explicit in the saved record.
Stop rules
A narrow unresolved state is more useful than a confident field assembled from mismatched evidence.
Keep the a traceable keep-or-merge decision dated and tied to one exact row.