--- title: "Use cases: MDM, supplier master, CRM, KYC" summary: "7 buyer situations, each with the trigger that starts the conversation and what the product will not do." canonical_url: https://entitybind.com/use-cases last_updated: 2026-10-15 copy: full --- # Use cases: MDM, supplier master, CRM, KYC > 7 buyer situations, each with the trigger that starts the conversation and what the product will not do. Canonical page: https://entitybind.com/use-cases Last updated: 2026-10-15 ## You own a company master you have to defend. Here is what one wrong merge costs, job by job. Send the export from your MDM, supplier master, CRM or onboarding queue. You get back which rows are one company, which of your existing matches we would not have made, and which we will not call — each with the column of yours that would have settled it. We write nothing to your systems. The six jobs below run on that one pipeline. What changes is the size of the bill when a merge is wrong. - 0: wrong bindings observed, on 317 GB companies recorded 2026-08-29 - 100%: resolved on a company number or an LEI (317/317) - 0: credits for a record we decline to decide, at any stage - 7: jobs, each with a worked example and its own limits - [Post-merger audit](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/post-merger-company-data-audit) (migration overlap): Two company masters need to become one migration plan, and your team has to decide which records should stay separate. Get it wrong and separate legal companies share one target record while original IDs and the evidence behind the merge are lost. - [Master data management](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/master-data-management) (unauditable merges): A stewardship queue nobody can clear, or a match rule set nobody outside the team can defend. Get it wrong and the bad merge publishes downstream on the next run; unpicking it a quarter later means reconstructing a decision nobody recorded. - [Supplier master and AP](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/supplier-master-and-ap) (duplicate vendors): A recovery audit, a shared-service consolidation, or a treasurer asking how much of the payment run goes to one corporate group. Get it wrong and an invoice is paid twice, group terms reach one vendor record of five, and one company carries two sets of bank details with nothing to tell fraud from a genuine change. - [CRM and RevOps](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/crm-and-revops) (duplicate accounts): A migration, a merger, or the quarter somebody finally counts how many rows in the account object are the same company. Get it wrong and two account teams meet mid-deal, the board counts one pipeline twice, and the merge behind it scored 0.87 with no evidence attached. - [KYC and onboarding](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/kyc-and-onboarding) (unevidenced identity): A regulatory register that will not validate, or an onboarding queue where analysts are re-doing the same identity search the system already ran. Get it wrong and screening, ownership and risk run against the wrong legal entity, and the file reads as clean until a supervisor asks for the evidence years later. - [Reference data](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/reference-data) (missing identifiers): A payments or reporting deadline that requires a structured identifier your reference data does not carry for every counterparty. Get it wrong and an empty field means three things at once: no identifier exists, nobody asked, or the lookup timed out. Three findings, three remediations, one null. - [AI agents](https://entitybind.com/use-cases/ai-agents) (unchecked counterparties): The first time an agent is about to pay, contract or onboard a counterparty it identified from a string. Get it wrong and the agent proceeds anyway, at machine speed, across every record in the queue, on a confidence nobody has measured against an outcome. ## Who usually brings each of these The job titles behind the six - Post-merger audit: Data migration leads, MDM owners and RevOps teams combining company records after an acquisition. - Master data management: MDM programme leads, data governance and stewardship teams, enterprise data architects, and anyone accountable for the customer or party master. - Supplier master and AP: CFOs and finance directors, accounts payable and shared-service centre leads, procurement and vendor master owners, and private equity portfolio operations teams. - CRM and RevOps: RevOps and sales operations leads, CRM administrators, Salesforce and HubSpot migration agencies, and private equity operating teams merging two go-to-market systems. - KYC and onboarding: Financial crime and onboarding operations teams, third-party and vendor risk functions, DORA and operational resilience programmes, and the consultancies delivering them. - Reference data: Reference and instrument data teams, capital markets operations, treasury and payments engineers, and anyone maintaining a crosswalk between identifier systems. - AI agents: Teams building agentic procurement, payments, onboarding or research workflows, and platform engineers deciding what an agent is allowed to act on. ## Your result is set by the columns you have Whichever of the six you picked, one thing sets your result: the columns your export actually carries. Here are the two ends of it — the shape that decides itself, and the shape that mostly comes back as a question. ### Best case · Identifier: 100% A company number or an LEI — 317/317 An agreeing company number or LEI decides on its own, once its register shape checks out. No model call, no egress, one credit. ### Hardest case · Truncated name: 58.10% A name whose ending has been cut off by a field-length limit — 61/105 44 of 105 come back as an abstention with a shortlist, which is the correct answer for a name whose missing tokens were the discriminating ones. Both figures come from the historical recording of 2026-08-29, and the fraction under each is its own population. Five more shapes sit between them — a name with a website, a postcode, a town, a country, a sentence naming the registered town — each with its own fraction and, where the source publishes one, a 95% interval. [All 7 shapes, the method and what none of it demonstrates](https://entitybind.com/accuracy). ### What this fixture is not Zero wrong bindings were observed across the historical six-shape recording and the separate domain fixture. Observed correctness was 1.0000 on accepted outcomes; this does not guarantee an error-free new workload. Historical results on an internal UK fixture with a preloaded catalogue. The September 5 replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot establish current calibration. No independent customer holdout or global coverage claim. Not sure which row your export is? Start with a company CSV in your Free workspace. For an assisted composition preview, contact us with your file: every record is tiered by its strongest surviving signal before a Sprint is quoted. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) ## Built for a master you have to defend Whichever of the six you picked, it is the same product with the same limits. Here they are, in the words we would use on a call. ### Built for Teams who own a company master and have to defend it — an MDM or stewardship queue, a supplier file before a payment run, a CRM after a migration or a merger, or counterparty onboarding that has to survive an audit years later. ### Wrong for Buying breadth as the product. We hold a fraction of an incumbent’s records and are not building a global company graph, so if the deliverable you want is a bigger database, this is not it. The five below hold as well. ### And these five hold, whichever you picked #### Resolve people Entity Bind resolves companies and organisations only. It does not resolve people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions exposure, emissions or geolocation, and its results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy. #### Write to your systems There is no writeback connector and one is off the roadmap. We propose; you apply, under your own change control. The moment a supplier writes to your master, an argument about a bad merge becomes an argument about whose fault it was. #### Replace the system you already pay for If you already run a licensed company-data feed or a master data management platform, run Entity Bind alongside it. It is the independent decision and evidence layer: it tests, repairs and governs the matches those systems propose, and it will contradict them with a citation when they are wrong. #### Promise a number of dangerous merges prevented We do not promise a count of dangerous merges prevented, and you should distrust anyone who does before they have seen your file. Zero is a normal, honest result: two rows carrying contradicting company numbers are refused outright and never reach the guard that would have counted them. #### Re-check your facts on a schedule Nothing revalidates on a cadence. Every fact carries first seen, last checked and a confirmation count, so you can see how old a claim is — but a record resolved in March is not silently refreshed in June. Self-service. Create your workspace online and verify your email to start matching company records. Free starts with 300 credits and no card. Paid monthly plans are available in workspace Billing; VAT is added where applicable. Usage is tracked without automatic overage charges. The retention, erasure and tenancy detail a security review asks for is on the trust page, with where assurance stands: no SOC 2, no external validation of the accuracy figures, no customer holdout. [Trust and security →](https://entitybind.com/trust) ## Once you have found your job on this page Three families answer what a buyer asks next: what else does this, how it would reach your stack, and whether the registers can reach your rows. - [What else claims to do this](https://entitybind.com/compare): Entity Bind beside the alternatives, with the rows where the alternative wins counted rather than omitted, and the one category this product refuses to be sold into. - [How it would reach your stack](https://entitybind.com/integrations): The clients and HTTP patterns already wired, the setup each one takes, its own config block, and its own limits. - [Whether the registers reach your rows](https://entitybind.com/coverage): The registers a request can reach today, the licence instrument each publishes under, what may be stored rather than only returned, and the coverage this product does not have. ## Six jobs, one first step. Whichever of the six brought you here, create your Free workspace and upload a company CSV. Inspect the matches and rows needing review, with nothing written back to the system it came from. Contact us separately for an assisted Sprint. [Start free](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) · [Plans and prices](https://entitybind.com/pricing) 300 credits. No card. For a guided review of your file, explore [the Merge Safety Sprint](https://entitybind.com/audit-pack). ## What buyers ask before they pick a page The 11 questions that arrive before anybody reads a use case. ### What is included in the 1,000-credit evaluation? 1,000 free credits. The full resolution pipeline. 1,000 one-time credits, valid for 30 days from your first resolution. No card required. Full resolution depth, with configured sources and their existing licence terms. It uses the same resolution pipeline and evidence rules as paid access. At the current credit prices, that means up to 1,000 shallow decisions or 200 deep decisions; the actual mix depends on your inputs. Abstentions, exact replays and evidence reads cost no credits. The planned allowance includes up to 1,000 deep attempts, including those that abstain. Credits and attempts are separate limits. Provider-spend protection may pause work explicitly; unused credits stay visible and the pipeline is never silently downgraded. The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation. ### Can my agent try it without a sales call? Your agent can read the public REST reference, the MCP setup and /api/quickstart.txt right now. Live calls need a key from your Entity Bind workspace and the base URL that comes with it. Today the workspace opens after email verification; once it is open, you create the key yourself and your agent uses it over the API or MCP. The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation. Signup is self-service. The separate full-pipeline evaluation remains request-only and requires confirmed availability and provider limits before activation. ### How do we start? Create your Free workspace online, verify your email and upload your own company CSV. Free includes 300 credits and shallow matching with no card; create your own API keys for REST and MCP, and choose a paid monthly subscription in Billing when you need greater depth or capacity. For an assisted Merge Safety Sprint, contact us with the file you are defending: a CRM export, a supplier master, a customer-success list or a post-merger overlap, with your own source ids preserved and, if you have them, the entity id, match and confidence your incumbent proposed. A person reads that request, and a short conversation scopes the optional assisted Sprint. What comes back is which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches we would not have made, and which we could not decide — where a further field would settle an unresolved row, it names that field. We write nothing into your systems, and you do not replace your current vendor to run it. The accuracy method is published in full at /accuracy. ### What is a Merge Safety Sprint? Send us a file. We tell you which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches are wrong, and what we could not decide — and we write nothing to your systems. The deliverable is the audit pack: twelve files, a receipt per decision, and a report that opens offline. It contains accepted matches, new entities, unresolved rows, withheld pairs, blocked merges, golden records, a reversal map, decision receipts, an attribution notice and a self-contained report that also prints to PDF. Every unresolved row carries a typed cause from a closed vocabulary of eight, and a column of yours to add or repair wherever a column is nameable — which is most rows and not all of them; where nothing we could name would help, the row says so rather than inventing a field. Two of the eight causes are ours rather than yours. The totals reconcile row by row across ten machine-checked identities, and if they do not partition, the run exits non-zero and no pack is delivered. It proposes actions; it never applies them. What it is not is a shadow run: the import behind it created entities in our catalogue, and the no-write property is scoped to your systems. ### How many dangerous merges will you find? We do not promise a count of dangerous merges prevented, and you should distrust anyone who does before they have seen your file. Zero is a normal, honest result: two rows carrying contradicting company numbers are refused outright and never reach the guard that would have counted them. The ledger only fills where the cascade proposed a merge and the guard refused it, so the well-identified files we qualify for are precisely the ones most likely to return nothing. What makes a zero readable is what sits behind it: the pack lists the pairs that were compared and not called, counts the pairs the comparison budget deferred, and states that the list was not truncated. A zero with that behind it is a finding. A zero without it is why we would not ship the file at all — a header-only file reading as "we found no dangerous merges" is the most misleading output this product could emit. ### Will you write to our CRM? No, and there is no writeback connector to switch on later either — automatic CRM or ERP writeback is explicitly not on the roadmap. What comes back is a set of files keyed on your own record ids, so the join happens on your side, under your change control. That is a commercial position as much as a technical one: the moment a supplier writes to your master, an argument about a bad merge becomes an argument about whose fault it is, and the receipt stops being the point. We propose actions and you apply them, or you do not. A report is never the system of record. ### Can you prove you are better than the vendor we already pay? 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. ### Another vendor quotes hundreds of millions of companies and a 96% match rate. How do you compare? Not on breadth. An incumbent-scale graph is not a battle a new entrant wins, and building a global proprietary company database is explicitly not the plan. Compare the numbers instead, starting with what a match rate has to carry before it means anything: the denominator, the fixture it was measured on, the automation rate beside it, and the shape the records arrived in. Every figure on this site carries all four, including the two that do us no favours. On the live-adjudicated fixture of 317 GB companies recorded 2026-08-29, the truncated-name shape resolves 58.10% (61/105) — our weakest input shape, published at the same weight as our strongest. Separately, on the continuous-integration gold set of 2026-09-05, 357/357 automated merges were clean at 63.10% automation, with a 95% Wilson lower bound of 98.94% — below the 99% anybody would rather quote. Those are two different instruments over two different fixtures, and they are never averaged. A vendor's figures are a vendor's figures, ours included; the way to settle it is to send the same file to both of us. ### We already have an MDM platform. Where does this fit? 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. ### What does an evaluation actually look like? Three steps and no obligation. First, we run a free preview over your file, which calls nothing and spends nothing: it tiers every row by the strongest retrieval signal that survives normalisation, tells you which of your populated columns are unusable and why, and prices a ceiling. Second, a sample run — usually a few thousand rows — that produces the audit pack and a set of rows you can check by hand against the register pages we cite. Third, a decision. If the preview shows your file already carries clean identifiers and nothing here would move, that is a valid outcome and the right place to stop. ### Who is behind it, and how long has it existed? Entity Bind is built in London by its founder, James Rooney, and it is early. It is a product name rather than a company: the company you contract with, and its registration, are named in the terms at /terms. The engineering discipline is real and published — the cascade, the calibration, the licence guard at the persistence layer, the receipts, the erasure proofs — and the commercial track record is not: no named production reference, no multi-customer holdout, no independent validation. The internal readiness rubric scores the product 74 out of 100 against its own 95 target, and scores external validation 3 out of 15. If your evaluation requires calling a customer already running this in production inside a regulated firm, we cannot give you one, and that is the first thing to weigh. --- Internal fixtures only. The historical 2026-08-29 per-tier recording covers 317 GB companies with identifier-rich arrivals seeding the catalogue first; the context tier includes country and registered-town prose. Its legacy replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot certify current calibration. The September 5 CI reports cover 1,176 labelled pairs and 705 records over 250 companies using offline stubs. These are not independent customer holdouts or live production validation; the 99% minimum-input product target remains unmet. Scope is company and organisation identity only — not people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions or emissions. Results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy. This is the Markdown copy of https://entitybind.com/use-cases, assembled from the same data the page renders and carrying every sentence, table row, figure and question the page's main content carries. The HTML page is canonical; it adds the layout, the navigation and the interactive parts (the ask panel, the forms), which a copy can name but not run. Every page on the site, with a line on each: https://entitybind.com/llms.txt.