People and households

Merge and change-risk boundaries

People-record changes should keep merge risk, relationship ambiguity, and real-data consequences visible instead of hiding them behind cleanup language.

Who this is for: Church admins, data stewards, and support-facing reviewers handling higher-risk people changes.

Last reviewed 2026-04-30 · Source of truth: broader help library · Languages: en, es

Article metadata

Product area: people and households

Owner: People data model

Parity reviewer: Bilingual launch review

Retrieval-ready: Yes

What to expect next

Document the ambiguity before asking for help so reviewers can see the real decision boundary.
Use guided review when the change could affect real people history, reporting meaning, or household structure.

Changes that should slow down

Slow down when a change could merge distinct people, rewrite household meaning, or collapse historical context your church may still need.

Slow down when multiple teams disagree about which record is canonical or when imported data conflicts with live staff assumptions.

How to frame the risk clearly

Describe which records are in question, what relationship or identity meaning feels unstable, and what downstream consequence the change could create.

Do not frame a consequential merge as simple cleanup if the real issue is unresolved identity or household interpretation.

Escalation path

If the change could alter real people identity, household meaning, or downstream history, treat it as a review case, not a routine cleanup shortcut.

Related next steps

Read duplicate and cleanup posture Ask grounded support Open Spanish version Back to help center