When I first read this, the thing that came to mind is negative match rules. Its the only thing that I can think of to 'prevent' something from matching. However, its not clear from your description if there is some data present to identify with the negative match rule.
This may be more of a long shot, but you don't have to merge/potential match from a match rule. You can configure a custom match action. I did a community show about this a while ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbu_8enc3is
YouTube |
remove preview |
|
|
In the realm of Life Sciences, data stewards are often faced with the intricate task of matching and merging HCP and HCO data. The precision in this process is paramount due to the potential repercussions on territory alignment, compensation, the Sunshine Act, and various other facets within life science data sets. |
View this on YouTube > |
|
|
. the content is focused on life sciences, but the configuration can apply to any industry. It might be able to solve what you are looking at
------------------------------
Gino Fortunato
Senior Solution Engineer
Reltio
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-17-2025 02:51
From: Ashish Rawat
Subject: How to set preference on match rules
Hi @Gino Fortunato @Snehil Kamal Tagging you, if you got any ideas on this use case.
------------------------------
Ashish Rawat
Sr. Manager
Fresh Gravity
Bangalore
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2025 11:39
From: Ashish Rawat
Subject: How to set preference on match rules
Let says if there are three types of records in MDM T1, T2 and T3. All the records has attribute A1 as 123.Here requirement is for T1 and T2 to match and ignore T3.
PS: T1 and T2 matches via Match rule1 where as T1 and T3 matches via rule2. T2 and T3 match is restricted.
One of the way we thought of doing this is via Recipe but wanted to check if something can be achieved via configuration.
------------------------------
Ashish Rawat
Sr. Manager
Fresh Gravity
Bangalore
------------------------------