Skip to main content
Match scoring decides how broadly or narrowly Minerva keeps potential screening matches as they pass through candidate retrieval, entity resolution, and final result filtering. Raise the bar and fewer potential matches reach analysts in Screening. Lower it and more borderline candidates stay visible for review. Access: Requires the Admin role or above. In the sidebar, go to Administration > Configuration, then open Match scoring under Screening Behaviours. Configuration is workflow-specific and workspace-scoped, so every profile screened in a workspace shares the same defaults unless a request overrides them. A Calibration workspace lets you test settings without changing Live until a workspace preset is promoted. Profile-level segmentation is handled separately by profile groups.

How match scoring works

Every screening result passes through three stages:
  1. Candidate retrieval: Minerva gathers source records from the selected feeds.
  2. Pre-resolution scoring: each source candidate is scored against the searched subject before entity resolution.
  3. Post-resolution scoring: Minerva clusters likely duplicate source records, scores the resolved candidate, and filters the final returned result set.
The Match Scoring configuration controls the second and third stages through eight groups of settings: Scoring compares the candidate with the searched subject across the feeds the search selected: sanctions lists, PEP data, and News adverse media, plus identity, profile context, and supporting evidence such as email, phone, and notes. PEP, Criminal, and High Risk Industry signals are derived separately by risk inference. The same settings usually call for different strictness in each workflow:

What a score means

Minerva uses normalized match scores from 0.00 to 1.00.
  • 1.00 means the compared values are effectively exact matches.
  • Values closer to 1.00 are stronger matches.
  • Values closer to 0.00 are weaker matches.
  • A threshold is the minimum score required to keep the candidate at that stage.
In result details and API responses, field-level comparisons carry these labels: The overall candidate score is not a simple average of the visible field labels. The engine scores the candidate using weighted evidence, candidate gates, missing-evidence behavior, and stage-specific thresholds. Once a potential match exists, Automatic Disposition can predict whether it should be cleared or escalated without analyst review.

Start from a preset

Minerva includes three built-in presets. Built-in presets stay fixed, and workspace presets can be created from a custom draft.
Balanced is the default for every workspace until an administrator changes the settings.
The exact numbers behind each preset are listed under decision thresholds, candidate score weights, and News and merge values.

Change one workflow at a time

Each workflow is configured on its own tab, so you can tune one without changing the others. The tab navigation stays visible as you scroll, so you can see which workflow you are changing. Use these actions when you need to keep workflows aligned:
Compare representative cases in a Calibration workspace before copying a workflow’s settings to the others.

Find the setting you need

The page includes a setting finder and the Minerva command palette also indexes the Match Scoring controls. Use the command palette when you already know the setting you need. Use the page finder when you are comparing nearby settings inside the same section.

Test a change in the score simulator

The score simulator lets administrators test draft settings without creating a live search or writing screening results. Use it when you want to answer questions like:
  • Would this exact-name, missing-DOB candidate still pass if missing evidence is penalized more?
  • How much does a different city or country reduce the score?
  • Would a transposed or phonetic name variation pass under Narrow, Balanced, or Wide?
  • Does the pre-resolution score behave differently from the post-resolution score?
  • Which setting moved the score enough to pass or fail the selected threshold?

Simulator steps

  1. Select the workflow tab you want to test, such as Onboarding or Direct API calls.
  2. Adjust the draft settings or select a preset. You do not need to save first.
  3. Go to Score simulator.
  4. Choose Pre-resolution or Post-resolution under Score using.
  5. Edit the Screened profile. Include the subject type, name, date, location, and screening sources that represent the request.
  6. Edit the Potential match record. Include the candidate name, aliases, date, locations, country, nationality, occupation/role, source lists, and feed hits you want to compare.
  7. Click Run simulation.
  8. Review the resulting score, return/filter state, threshold comparison, and attribute comparison.
Run the same example before and after changing one setting. This makes it easier to see whether the score moved because of a threshold, a field weight, missing evidence, name behavior, date behavior, or location behavior.

Reading simulation results

Simulator results are examples, not production searches. They are best used for calibration and explanation before saving changes or promoting a workspace preset.

Calibrate in a controlled order

Match scoring changes affect which candidates analysts see. Tune in small increments, use clear change descriptions, and compare review volume, latency, and missed-risk sensitivity before moving further away from Balanced.
Use this sequence when calibrating match scoring:
  1. Start from Balanced and collect examples of false positives, plausible missed matches, and high-volume review cohorts.
  2. Tune one workflow at a time. Onboarding, monitoring, Direct API, and risk assessments often have different tolerance for review volume.
  3. Use the simulator to compare representative examples before saving.
  4. Adjust feed-specific pre-resolution thresholds when the issue is feed-specific noise, such as weak records that are obviously unrelated to the searched subject.
  5. Adjust post-resolution thresholds when entity resolution is grouping candidates correctly but the final result set is too broad or too narrow, or when records look related before entity resolution and disappear after final scoring.
  6. Adjust candidate score weights only when the field-level evidence balance is wrong. For example, increase location or DOB/date weights when similar names are passing despite conflicting location or date evidence.
  7. Adjust name, DOB/date, and location behavior when the field similarity score itself is too strict or too forgiving.
  8. Adjust merge thresholds when entity resolution is over-merging or under-merging source records.
  9. Tune one adverse-media retrieval control at a time. Moving geography bias from Strict to Broad or None, turning on Broad name filtering, or raising max requested articles changes the upstream article pool, so the effect reaches further than the final score filter.
  10. Enable News location inference only where the extra subject-linked geography is worth the added latency.
  11. Save a clear change description so history shows why the calibration was deployed.
  12. Use history and rollback if the change moves review volume, latency, or recall in the wrong direction.
General tuning guidance:
  • Higher thresholds are stricter and usually reduce the number of analyst-visible potential matches, while lower thresholds increase recall and review volume
  • Higher evidence weights make that evidence category more influential when present
  • Higher name tolerance settings generally make name variations easier to match, while higher penalties or floors make name matching stricter
  • Monitoring changes can change recurring alert volume across an existing profile population, and repeated alert suppression handles the repeat noise that ongoing monitoring creates
  • Direct API changes should be coordinated with API consumers, especially if those consumers already submit request-level overrides

Review and save a change

When you click Review changes, Minerva shows a grouped confirmation view before anything is saved. The review dialog shows:
  • The number of changes and sections affected
  • The selected preset change, if applicable
  • Each workflow with changed thresholds, weights, gates, matching behavior, merge behavior, and News controls
  • An optional Change Description field
  • Simulator examples linked to the draft, when available
Use the change description to capture the reason for the calibration, such as a false-positive review, a model calibration review, a high-risk cohort exception, or a post-launch monitoring adjustment.

Check history and roll back a change

The Match Scoring page includes a quick History preview so you can review recent deployments without leaving the configuration page. Use the preview to:
  • See the current live deployment first
  • Review prior threshold, weight, matching behavior, merge behavior, and News retrieval changes
  • Preview an older deployment on the main page
  • Open the full audit history page
Rollback restores a previous deployment by writing a new history entry. It does not delete prior history. The full history page includes:
  • Changed: when the configuration was saved or rolled back
  • Action: whether the event was an update or rollback
  • Summary: the key scoring changes
  • Changed by: the user who performed the change
  • Actions: rollback entry points for older deployments

Decision thresholds

Pre-resolution and post-resolution thresholds answer different questions.

Preset thresholds

Decision thresholds are editable from 0.60 to 1.00.

Candidate score weights

Candidate score weights control how much each evidence category contributes when that evidence is present. The dashboard presents the main control once per setting and applies it to both stages. Use Advanced: split pre/post resolution only when a workflow needs different behavior before and after entity resolution. Most evidence-weight sliders use a customer-facing range of 0.00 to 1.00. The Missing evidence penalty uses 0 to 100.
Missing evidence penalty is safe to turn off. A value of 0 means missing optional fields do not reduce the denominator. For example, if the request includes name and DOB, and the candidate matches the name but has no DOB to compare, the DOB absence does not reduce the score when the missing-evidence penalty is 0.

Location component weights

The Location card holds four separate component weights: Country, State / province, City, and Address. Each uses the 0.00 to 1.00 range, and the four add up to the location total. Whenever at least one component is compared, the location block contributes the whole location total, not just the compared components’ shares. A country-only comparison on Balanced still carries the full 0.75 post-resolution block, scaled by the country score. Because each component uses the 0.00 to 1.00 range, a custom split can also make the total larger than the single weight it replaced.
Default and backward compatibility. When no component weight is set, the previous single location weight is split evenly across the four components. Balanced defaults are 0.025 for each component before resolution and 0.1875 for each component after resolution. A workspace that never configured location components scores exactly as before, and an existing location weight needs no rewrite.
Setting any component changes the shape. The components you leave out resolve to 0, and the location total becomes the sum of the components you set. location is not consulted once a component is present, so set all four explicitly to keep a mixed posture, which the dashboard does. Address is usually absent. Set Address to 0 when street-level evidence is unreliable or incomplete. A zero-weight component does not contribute to the score, adds no absence charge, and does not trigger strict location gating. A value the request supplies can still appear in the result’s field-level comparison detail. While Address is nonzero, a request address the candidate lacks still adds to the missing-evidence denominator, scaled by the address weight. A component weight of 0 disables that component for scoring and for strict location gating: a strictness level cannot hard-reject on a component whose weight is 0. Missing evidence is not symmetric between the two sides:
  • Request-side omission is free. A component the request does not supply adds nothing to the numerator or the denominator, so a country-only request is scored on country alone.
  • Candidate-side absence is charged. When the request supplies a component and the candidate has none, the block adds that component’s missing-evidence charge to the denominator, scaled by the component’s weight. Under the even default split this is the same per-component charge the previous single location weight produced.
  • A zero-weight component adds no charge on either side.
Country is the exception to the two-sided rule: when Allow nationality for country match is enabled, nationality supplies the candidate side even if the candidate has no country field. Component similarity still scores partially. An address, city, state, or country value that is similar rather than exact contributes its own partial score to the average, weighted by that component’s weight. For example, a candidate recorded as Lagos, Nigeria still scores against a request that supplies only Nigeria. Country is compared because both sides have it, city, state, and address are skipped because the request has no value for them, and the location average is the country score alone. The block still contributes its full total for that comparison: a country-only match on Balanced carries 0.75, not the country share. The request is not charged for the components it never sent. Downweight city and state without discounting country. Lower City and State / province while leaving Country and Address where they are when a lone city/state disagreement should not drop an otherwise strong match.
Lowering city and state reduces geographic discrimination. Candidates that differ only by city keep more of their location contribution, so expect more borderline matches and additional review volume. The location total drops by exactly what you remove from the components, so location contributes less to every candidate score. Raise Country by the amount you removed when the overall location contribution must stay the same.
Retrieval geography is separate from scoring geography. News and Open Source retrieval geography (Strict, Broad, or None) decides which articles are retrieved before scoring, and it does not read the location component weights. If a subject’s address is current but their adverse coverage places them elsewhere historically, lowering city and state fixes scoring but not retrieval. Set the News geography filter to None or Broad as well.
Component weights change how much each level contributes, not how strict the comparison is. Default location strictness, the strict location cutoff, and the Sanctions/PEP location weight override work as before. The override still sets the total location contribution, and Minerva scales the component weights proportionally so their ratio is preserved.

Preset weight values

Each location component is exactly one quarter of the preset’s previous single location weight: 0.10 / 4 = 0.025 before resolution and 0.75 / 4 = 0.1875 after resolution under Balanced.

Candidate gates

Candidate gates are cutoffs that can stop a candidate before weighted evidence alone determines the score.
Some legacy backend fields remain available for API compatibility but are not shown in the dashboard. Customer-facing configuration should use the settings above.

Name matching behavior

Name matching behavior controls how the engine converts compared names into name similarity scores before the name weight is applied.

Person names

Use higher tolerance values when the workflow should accept common formatting, transliteration, phonetic, and ordering variation. Use lower tolerance values when name precision matters more and broader recall is creating too many same-name matches.

Organization names

Raise base name weight when legal suffixes, punctuation, and descriptors vary frequently. Raise full name weight when exact full-name agreement should matter more.

DOB and date matching behavior

DOB/date behavior controls how date evidence is scored before the DOB/date weight is applied. The soft falloff is not a pass/fail boundary. It changes the shape of date-score decay for dates within the hard range cutoff. The hard cutoff is the boundary where date similarity becomes 0 before weighting.

Location matching behavior

Location matching behavior controls how location evidence is evaluated before the location component weights are applied. Strictness levels are progressive:

Entity-resolution merge behavior

Entity resolution combines likely duplicate source records before post-resolution scoring. Merge settings affect candidate clustering, not the final score threshold directly. Raise merge thresholds when unrelated source records are being combined. Lower them when duplicate records are staying separate and creating repeated analyst review.

News controls

Each screening workflow has its own News controls. These settings sit before final match scoring. They change which articles are retrieved, which retrieved articles are admitted for adverse-media analysis, and whether article-linked locations are added before geography scoring. For how articles are found and categorized, see adverse media.
Broadening News retrieval can increase adverse-media volume and processing time. Avoid changing geography bias, name filtering, article caps, and score thresholds all at once unless you are running a controlled calibration pass.

News geography filter

News name filter

Max requested articles

Raise this value when relevant adverse-media articles may appear later in provider results. Lower it when common-name searches are creating too much latency or when a workflow does not need broad article recall.
Higher article caps can add processing time because Minerva may retrieve and review more News candidates. High-volume subjects may take a few additional seconds for each extra 100 articles, especially when retrieval has also been broadened.

News location inference

News location inference reviews matching risk-classified News articles and extracts locations that appear tied to the screened subject. Those inferred article locations can then provide more geographic evidence before News match scoring. Turn it on when article text often identifies the subject’s relevant city, state, region, country, operations, arrest, investigation, or other subject-linked geography more clearly than the original search request.
News location inference uses model-backed article analysis and can add seconds to News searches. Enable it first in Calibration, direct API, or risk-assessment workflows where the extra geographic evidence is worth the added latency before considering it for high-volume monitoring.

Preset retrieval and merge values

The built-in presets also set News retrieval, location strictness, and merge behavior:

Request-level overrides

Match scoring is the workspace default. It applies when the screening request does not provide an explicit override. This is the preferred operating model, especially for Direct API customers, because it keeps defaults visible in the dashboard and audit history. Direct API requests can still override settings for partnership, reseller, legacy, or investigation-specific flows. Core screening logic gives request-level values precedence over workspace configuration. For new integrations, use the same customer-facing ranges shown in the dashboard tables. Some backend fields accept broader legacy ranges for backward compatibility, but dashboard-equivalent values are easier to reason about, audit, and compare with simulator runs. Applies to. POST /v1/search, POST /v1/search-sync, GET /v1/search-sync (URL-encoded JSON in the query string), and POST /interface/search (the risk-assessment interface route) accept these overrides: nested settings under global_filters, per-feed settings under feed_filters, and the top-level aliases noted in the table. POST /v2/search accepts the nested filters per entity only: put them inside each entities[] object, because a body-level global_filters or feed_filters is ignored on a v2 request.
If a request sends both a nested runtime object and scalar aliases, Minerva merges them into one runtime configuration before scoring. Omitted sections fall back to the workspace setting, then to Balanced defaults when no workspace value exists.
Example Direct API override:
Scalar aliases are useful for legacy integrations, but the nested runtime object is easier to audit because related settings stay grouped by scoring behavior.

Country-dominant matching (worked example)

A customer screens a subject by name, date of birth, country, city, and state in the onboarding workflow. The request carries West Kelowna, BC, Canada. The candidate has the same name, no date of birth, and is recorded in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada. The city does not match, while the state matches through the BC to British Columbia expansion and the country matches exactly. The date is not compared because the candidate carries none, but its absence still adds a missing-evidence charge. The city mismatch is the only failed comparison. Under the Balanced even split the four components carry 0.1875 each, but this request supplies no address, so the 0.75 block is averaged over the three components it does supply. Each carries 0.25 of the block’s weight, so the city miss removes 0.25 from the numerator, about 0.14 of the final score against the 1.85 denominator, while the matching country and state earn the same 0.25 each. A second miss would remove another 0.25. The candidate scores 0.811 against a 0.85 post-resolution threshold (the Balanced onboarding and ongoing-monitoring setting), so a record that should match is dropped. On the Balanced Direct API output threshold of 0.75 the same candidate clears the threshold even under the default split. On a Balanced workspace, give country most of the post-resolution block and keep the total at 0.75:
The same request and the same candidate now score 0.919 against the same 0.85 threshold. Address is 0 because screening records rarely carry street-level evidence, and the four components still sum to 0.75, so the block’s total weight is unchanged; only its distribution changed. This example sets postResolutionWeights only. Pre-resolution scoring keeps the Balanced even split of its 0.10 location block; to make country dominant before resolution as well, set the four preResolutionWeights keys to a distribution that sums to 0.10. The 0.75 total is Balanced-specific: Narrow uses 1.00 for the post-resolution location block and Wide uses 0.50. A less aggressive variant keeps city and state at 0.10 each and gives country 0.55, still a 0.75 total. The same case scores 0.892: above the threshold, with more credit left for an accurate city. A country-only split is also valid: set country to 0.75 and address, city, and state to 0. Backward compatibility. A request or workspace that sets no component weight scores exactly as it did before the split: the single location weight is divided evenly across the four components, and a Balanced workspace keeps 0.1875 per component after resolution. An existing location weight needs no rewrite for the same reason. The block switches to component weighting only when at least one component weight is set in the request or the workspace. The full resolution and zeroing rules are under Location component weights.

Role-aware adverse media

Role-aware adverse media is a separate screening configuration that runs after adverse-media articles have been retrieved and analyzed. It helps identify whether a negative article appears to involve the screened subject or is likely only a name mention. Use Match Scoring when you need to tune candidate thresholds, candidate evidence weighting, matching behavior, merge behavior, or News retrieval and article-analysis behavior. Use Role-Aware Adverse Media when you need to show or filter confident article-subject relevance signals after adverse-media analysis has already run.