Normalize the submission
Standardize names, identifiers, country and jurisdiction before searching.
Structured seller input
Verify the legal business behind every seller and vendor account.
Match submitted business details to the correct company, understand who is behind it and return evidence states your onboarding and trust teams can use at scale.
For marketplace operations, trust and safety, seller risk, payments and vendor-onboarding product teams.
Seller verification responseEvidence assembled
SubjectAurora Home Goods S.A.S.
ResolvedSeller legal entity resolved
Decision questionDoes this account represent a real legal entity—and do we understand the people and companies behind it?
Government registry dataFrench company identity, active status and two shareholders
Source factVerified public-source evidenceMarketplace-provided domain matched to the legal entity as enrichment
Separate evidenceZavia calculation75% corporate branch traced to one 60% effective owner
Formula shownUnresolved or conflictingA second storefront with a similar name is not identity-confirmed
ReviewWorkflow outcomeBusiness verified; related-storefront link withheld from automated decisioning
One evidence model throughoutExact legal entityNamed source and dateVisible ownership pathExplicit evidence gaps
The operating problem
A storefront or brand name is not a verified business.
Marketplaces receive trading names, incomplete addresses and local identifiers in inconsistent formats. Zavia resolves the legal entity first, then applies ownership research to the verified subject.
Decision to support
Does this account represent a real legal entity—and do we understand the people and companies behind it?
01
Does the submitted business match an active legal entity in the stated jurisdiction?
02
Who owns or controls that entity, and are material branches unresolved?
03
Are related business accounts supported by entity evidence or only a weak name match?
How the workflow fits
Move from submitted company to reviewable evidence.
Zavia provides the company and ownership layer. Your team keeps control of policy, judgment and the final decision.
Resolve the company
Return plausible legal entities and require selection of the correct registered business.
Verified company subject
Trace ownership
Identify supported shareholders, UBO candidates and relevant group relationships.
Ownership evidence
Return reason states
Provide supported, calculated and unresolved fields for the platform's decision policy.
Onboarding response
What your team receives
A decision file—not a data dump.
Every output is built to be reviewed by a person, passed into a system and revisited when the underlying company changes.
Seller identity match
Legal name, identifiers, status, registered address and source-backed match context.
Ownership evidence
Direct owners, corporate layers, people reached and visible calculations.
Related-company context
Supported corporate relationships kept separate from possible or name-only matches.
Change events
Monitoring inputs for status, ownership and group changes after activation.
Evidence architecture
Do not flatten four different evidence states into one answer.
The distinction is visible to analysts and available to systems through structured delivery.
Government registry data
The company fact or relationship as reported by the named official registry or government source.
Verified public-source evidence
A named public disclosure matched to the legal entity and kept separate from official registry facts.
Zavia calculation
A result derived from supported source facts, with the entity path and formula available to reproduce.
Unresolved or conflicting
A missing, unclear or inconsistent part of the record that the workflow must not convert into certainty.
The procurement test
What a skeptical buyer will challenge.
These are the controls that prevent a useful company-data workflow from becoming an overclaimed black box.
“Extra verification will damage conversion.”
Entity resolution can run before deeper ownership checks, allowing the platform to reserve review for higher-risk, higher-value or ambiguous cases.
“Related-company matching creates false positives.”
Relationship type and match status remain explicit. A similar name is not treated as a confirmed related account.
“The vendor cannot decide whether we approve a seller.”
Zavia returns company evidence and reason states. The marketplace owns eligibility rules, user treatment and the final decision.
Use the same evidence everywhere
Web platform, API, MCP, bulk data and monitoring.
Agreed web, API, MCP, bulk-data and monitoring implementations are designed to preserve the same resolved entities, relationship paths, evidence types, available dates, calculations and unresolved states.
Compare access methodsStructured decision contextDoes this account represent a real legal entity—and do we understand the people and companies behind it?
- entity
- resolved
- registry_evidence
- attached
- ownership_paths
- visible
- calculations
- reproducible
- unresolved
- explicit
Frequently asked questions
Scope, evidence and workflow boundaries.
Need to test a specific jurisdiction or policy? Talk to the Zavia team.
Use your own company cases
Test the evidence before you change the workflow.
Start with a legal entity your team already knows. Compare the sources, ownership path and unresolved gaps against your current process.