Understand · Explanation
How records are connected
What CityScroll means when it links two records, how to inspect that claim, and why some obvious relationships stay unlinked.
What does a connection between two records actually claim?
What a connection claims
CityScroll connects records the city publishes separately — a notice to the agency that issued it, an agency to a vendor it awarded work to, a rule to the duty behind it. Every one of those connections is a claim, and every claim has a basis you can read.
The claim is always narrow. It says these two published records refer to the same thing, and here is what made that identification. It never says one record caused the other, and it never says anyone did anything wrong.
How the identification was made
Open How this connection was made on a connected record and you get the basis rather than a score. There are three kinds, and the difference is worth knowing.
| Basis | What it means | How much weight it carries |
|---|---|---|
| Matched by a published record | The two records carry the same identifier the publisher issued — a procurement identifier, an agency code, a project number | The strongest kind. The city's own key did the joining |
| Record-linkage match | The records were matched on their content, such as an organization's name, rather than on a shared identifier | Weaker. Names are written inconsistently, and different organizations share names |
| Person-accepted | Someone reviewed the pair and accepted it | As good as the review, which is why it is labelled rather than hidden |
The same panel names the relation itself — "issued rule", for instance — and links the official source the records came from. If a connection matters to you, that link is the thing to open.
The connection has an address
A connection you have opened stays in the address of the page. Copy the address and you can send someone the record with that specific claim already inspected, rather than telling them where to click. It is the same habit as keeping the address of a search: the link carries the state.
Why an obvious relationship can be missing
A connection that plainly exists in the world can still be absent here, and none of these reasons means the relationship is not real.
- No shared identifier was published. Two records can describe the same contract without either one carrying a key the other has. There is then nothing exact to join on.
- The name is written differently. A vendor filed as one spelling on a notice and another on a payment record may not resolve to one organization.
- The city has not published the joining record. Some links exist only inside an agency's own systems, or are released in a form that cannot be joined.
- The match was not good enough to show. A connection that could not be classified is left off the page rather than shown wrapped in hedges. An absent connection is not a denial that the relationship exists.
What a connection is not
A connection is not a finding. Two records being linked is not evidence that money moved improperly, that an official acted wrongly, or that a decision was made because of the other record. A named awardee on a contract does not mean that vendor is currently open to subcontractors, and a vendor appearing beside an agency repeatedly is a count, not a conclusion.
Read the connection for what it says — the same thing appears in two places the city published — and take the rest from the official sources on either end.