A procurement spreadsheet that keeps a supplier number but drops the register that issued it has removed part of the identity evidence. The same sequence of characters can have a different meaning in another system. Before combining public contracting records, retain both the register scheme and the number, with the original source. This article addresses research-file design, not the legal standing or commercial reliability of any supplier.

We read the OCDS 1.1.5 identifier documentation on 14 October 2026. No company register was queried for this article, no supplier identity was independently matched and no credit or contract assessment was performed.

The source separates scheme and value

The official OCDS identifier guidance describes an organisation identifier using a register prefix in scheme and the existing organisation number in id. A recognised public record address can also be kept in uri. These are labelled fields, not interchangeable pieces of a supplier name.

Ask a specific question of each supplied reference

Start with what the procurement document actually calls the number. Is it presented as an organisation identifier, a local vendor account or a product reference? Record that description before trying to match it elsewhere. If the issuing system is missing, ask the document’s issuer to identify it. Do not choose a familiar register simply because the number looks plausible.

A hypothetical handover might contain an invoice issuer and a separate warehouse location. The research question is which entity the supplied reference identifies. Keep those two roles separate until their relationship is supported. This example describes a record structure; it does not supply an invented company, registration number or claimed business relationship.

Keep original and working values side by side

A useful worksheet can contain the supplied label, supplied value, named scheme, claimed organisation, document reference, observation date and unresolved question. Preserve the original document independently of the working row. A normalised display name is useful for reading, but it should not replace the spelling or identifier actually found in the source.

When an export moves between tools, check whether leading zeros, punctuation or case have changed. That check concerns the integrity of the research copy. It does not authenticate the source document or prove that the quoted seller is entitled to use the number. Keep the technical import check and the substantive identity check in different fields.

Label a mapping as a mapping

If a second source provides another identifier, add a relationship with its evidence rather than overwriting the first value. Explain whether the relationship was supplied by the seller, returned by an official record or inferred by the researcher. An inference should remain visible and should not silently become an accepted entity match.

When two descriptions disagree, preserve the disagreement. A supplier’s marketing brand may differ from its quotation issuer; a location may have changed; or the research file may simply be incomplete. This article does not diagnose the cause. Needs editor verification: the actual entity, current register entry, source provenance and any unresolved relationship.

A bounded procurement handover

The useful output is a labelled identity record that another reviewer can follow, together with the questions it has not answered. It is not a verified-supplier badge. Stock, capacity, payment instructions, distribution authority and product suitability require their own evidence and responsible review.

Our editorial recommendation is to retain the scheme when retaining the number, and to distinguish a source statement from a completed lookup. That makes later review more precise without pretending to have performed it already. Recheck the current documentation and actual records before applying this method to a live procurement decision.