Good party data prevents invoices under duplicate names, payments linked to the wrong supplier and collection reports that cannot be explained. Clean an independent working copy and do not alter the only source before approval.
Set cleaning rules
- Keep a stable old identifier for every record in the mapping file.
- Agree Arabic, English and legal-name conventions where relevant.
- Standardise phone, email and city formats without inventing missing values.
- Separate active status from the existence of historical balance or documents.
- Require independent review for supplier bank-detail changes.
Classify issues
| Type | Example | Safe action |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed duplicate | Two identifiers with matching evidence | Select a master and approve a merge map |
| Similar, unresolved | Close names without a reliable identifier | Stop the merge and ask the business owner |
| Missing value | Email or tax number unavailable | Leave blank or mark for review |
| Old record | No recent movement but historical documents | Prevent new use while retaining history |
Execute and test
- Take a dated extract and record its original row count.
- Apply rules in new columns before replacing source values.
- Manually review duplicates carrying balances or transactions.
- Compare record counts and control totals before and after merges.
- Test an invoice, collection and payment using clean records.
- Retain an exception list and decision for every exception.
Acceptance criterion
Every result record should map to one approved source record or a documented merge group, while balances and documents remain traceable to old identifiers. Connect this checklist with the collection-days and credit-policy articles and the data-migration guide.
A similar name or phone number is not sufficient proof for a merge. Combining two different customers or suppliers is harder to correct than keeping an explicit question for review.
