Keep the system you already run. We tell you which of its matches we would refuse.

Two differences, and only one of them is about the score. The first is calibration: a similarity score of 0.87 is a statement about two strings, while a calibrated confidence is a statement about how often decisions like this one have turned out right, computed from recorded trial and error counts with no tunable term in the module. The second is what happens at the bottom of the range. A fuzzy matcher always returns its best candidate and leaves the threshold to you; Entity Bind refuses to bind below 0.90 confidence and returns an abstention carrying a ranked shortlist and the one column that would have decided it. Keep your fuzzy matcher for the obvious duplicates. This is for the rows that cost you money when they are wrong.

Not in the abstract, and not from a benchmark we ran ourselves. What we can do is adjudicate their proposals on your data: send your record with the match your incumbent proposed, and we accept it, withhold it or contradict it independently, per provider, per jurisdiction and per evidence tier. That produces a number about your file rather than about a fixture, and it is checkable, because every contradiction cites a register page you can open. One thing we do not currently ship is a packaged incumbent-contradiction ledger inside the audit pack — that file is absent by declaration rather than empty — so the comparison is a working session today rather than a download.

Beside it, as the layer that decides and evidences rather than the one that stores. A master data platform is very good at governance workflow, stewardship, hierarchy management and pushing a golden record to the systems that consume it, and none of that is on offer here. What it usually does not have is an independent admission policy: the matching rules are yours, tuned by your stewards, and there is nothing outside the platform to contradict them with a citation. Entity Bind is that outside opinion, with a receipt per decision and a floor it will not cross, feeding the stewardship queue rather than replacing it. If your stewards are drowning, the abstentions are the work list.

No. Every fixture is internal and repository-authored. The per-tier table rests on 317 live GB companies sampled from the 2026-08-01 Companies House snapshot, with same-name siblings included. Identifier-rich arrivals seed the catalogue before the weaker input shapes are evaluated. The continuous-integration gate rests on 1,176 labelled company pairs — 216 handwritten adversarial, 960 generated from a fixed seed — plus a 705-record fixture over 250 UK-registered companies. There is no customer holdout, no time or jurisdiction split, no blinded head-to-head against a named competitor, no independent laboratory validation and no third-party penetration test. The internal readiness rubric scores external validation 3 out of 15 and the product 74 out of 100 overall, which is why the site says early-stage rather than proven. What is available in its place is the method, the fixtures and the failure cases in full, and an evaluation that begins by running your file rather than by reading ours.

No. Not SOC 2 Type I, not Type II, not ISO 27001. It has not been started, no auditor is engaged and there is no target date. There is also no third-party penetration test and no bug bounty; the security review is internal and adversarial, but it is our own. If your procurement floor requires any of those, you cannot buy this today, and it is worth establishing that on the first call. What does exist is a trust document naming the file, test or architectural decision that enforces every claim it makes, so each control can be checked rather than taken on trust. The gap between that and SOC 2 is the independent attestation that the controls operated over a period.

Five registers carry measurements: the United Kingdom (Companies House, the baseline), the United States via Colorado and via SEC filers, France (SIRENE) and Norway (Brønnøysund). Combined three-region parity against the UK baseline measured 0.999955 against a pre-declared 0.9565 bar, at zero model spend, with no false binds in any register. Adapters for Finland, Czechia and Poland are wired but carry no evaluation fixtures, so they have no measured quality and we do not sell them as covered. Everything else in the source inventory is a planned build with a cost in engineer-days rather than a present capability. The claim is per register, never per continent.

Some, cited, and bounded. Ownership rides along from GLEIF Level 2 relationship records and the UK persons-with-significant-control register, with every edge carrying its basis and its certainty — because GLEIF's "parent" means accounting consolidation while a credit bureau's means majority legal ownership, and rendering both as one parent field is wrong in a way nobody can see. Traversal defaults to one hop and may be raised to ten, is cycle-safe, fails closed on ambiguous or name-only owners, and always populates what it did not walk, so you cannot infer depth from an empty field. It is bounded by LEI adoption, so an incomplete path is an absence of coverage rather than an absence of owners.