Start here
Five rules for a safe first handoff
- Flag candidates for review instead of merging automatically.
- Compare evidence from approved sources.
- Preserve both profile histories.
- Keep candidate communication with recruiting owners.
- Record the merge or no-merge decision and reason.
Task map
Split admin work from owner decisions
| Work lane | Philippines team | Company owner | Useful check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flag | Record the possible match and source fields. | Decide whether the profiles refer to one person. | Flag is not a merge |
| Compare | List matching and conflicting evidence. | Review identity and consent context. | Sources and dates are visible |
| Pipeline | Show stages and scheduled actions on both records. | Choose the active recruiting path. | No candidate loses a scheduled step |
| Resolution | Record the authorized merge, link, or no-match outcome. | Approve system change and message. | History remains recoverable |
Example pilot board
Use small numbers for the first review
Treat similarity as a signal
Names, phone numbers, email domains, schools, or employers can match by coincidence. Start with a flag and a comparison, not an automatic merge.
Record the source and date of each matching field. A current email can carry more weight than an old resume, but the recruiting owner decides what the evidence means.
Preserve candidate history
Keep both profiles, stage histories, messages, interview notes, and consent records available to the authorized reviewer until the system owner decides. A merge can lose context or attach one candidate’s communication to another.
The coordinator should not move a candidate to a new stage while identity remains unresolved.
Coordinate without exposing the review
Use a restricted comparison task. Do not ask a candidate to explain an internal duplicate flag through an unapproved message or expose the profile of another person.
If a scheduled interview or assessment is affected, the recruiter decides the candidate-safe communication.
Document the resolution
A final record should say merge, link, or no match; who approved it; what evidence was considered; and what system changes followed. Keep the reason factual and avoid speculation about the candidate.
If a record is corrected, retain the system’s audit history where available.
Copy-ready scripts
Make the stop points easy to say
Review flag"Possible duplicate between profiles [A] and [B]. Matching fields: [list]. Conflicts: [list]. No merge has been made."
Recruiter escalation"The duplicate flag may affect [scheduled action]. Please decide the active recruiting path and approved candidate message."
Check the cause, not just the symptom
Review whether duplicates come from imports, inconsistent email capture, recruiter handoffs, or candidate self-service. A data-quality owner can fix the source rule.
Do not solve recurring duplicates by giving coordination staff permission to merge without review.
Launch path
A five-step HR outsourcing workflow
- 01
Map duplicate candidate profile review
List the source, required fields, owner, due time, and approved destination for duplicate candidate profile review.
- 02
Test examples
Use redacted routine and exception examples with the responsible owner watching.
- 03
Run the lane
Prepare work, route questions, and record evidence without changing the approved scope.
- 04
Review the sample
Compare output to the brief and correct the operating notes.
- 05
Decide the next scope
Expand, narrow, or hand back the work using the review record.
Buyer FAQ
HR outsourcing questions
Can a coordinator merge profiles?
Only if the system owner has explicitly authorized the reviewed action. A flag alone is not permission.
What evidence matters?
Approved identifiers, source dates, communication history, and pipeline context reviewed by recruiting ownership.
Should one profile be deleted?
The system owner decides retention and merge treatment. Do not delete by assumption.
What if an interview is scheduled on both?
Pause duplicate action and route the conflict to the recruiter so candidate communication stays consistent.
Sources
Source notes
- National Privacy Commission of the Philippines: Data Privacy ActRelevant privacy context for protecting candidate records and limiting unnecessary disclosure.