Results
My results are missing something. Why?
A result can look incomplete for a few common reasons:- The search ran with limited subject data, such as a name only, without date of birth, country, employer, or other identifiers.
- Workflows return different levels of depth. Standard screening is designed for fast review, while Risk Assessment is the better path for deeper due diligence.
- Source coverage varies by subject, geography, and the quality of the available public or structured records. See Data Feeds for what each source covers.
- The detail may sit at the potential match or source-record level rather than in the top-level summary.
Why do results sometimes look inconsistent?
Results vary when the underlying inputs or context change. Common causes:- Running searches with different identifiers, spelling, or entity type.
- New information appearing in monitored sources over time.
- Comparing a quick screening workflow with a deeper investigative workflow.
- Reviewing one potential match or one source record instead of the full profile history.
My other vendor flagged a person as a PEP, but Minerva did not. Why?
This usually comes down to policy differences rather than a simple data gap. Vendors use different PEP definitions, source sets, lookback periods, relationship rules, and thresholds for keeping a person in active scope. One provider may apply a broader default standard, keep former office-holders in scope for longer, or include relatives and close associates more aggressively. Another may require stronger role, timing, or relationship evidence before classifying a record as an active PEP or as a relative or close associate (RCA). Minerva applies its own normalized, role-based, risk-sensitive policy instead of treating any upstream source definition as final. As a result, Minerva may exclude a person when the available evidence does not support a qualifying office, a supported RCA relationship, or active lookback treatment under Minerva’s standard. For the full definition, inclusion categories, exclusions, and lookback rules, see PEP Policy.Why do the results feel over-consolidated?
Minerva groups related findings into one review path to reduce noise. That grouping can sometimes make results look more consolidated than you expect. In practice it usually means:- Similar findings are grouped under one profile or review path.
- The summary view is combining supporting signals that should be reviewed in more detail.
- A single subject may have several related source matches that are intentionally presented together to speed up analyst review.
I cannot find my search subject. What should I check?
Start with the basics:- Confirm whether the subject should be searched as an individual or an organization.
- Try alternate spellings, aliases, abbreviations, or legal entity names.
- Add identifiers such as date of birth, country, employer, or related entity data when you have them.
- Check whether the subject was created or reviewed previously under a different profile record.
- Use Risk Assessment if the case needs broader investigative coverage than a standard screening workflow.