Partial birth dates and source dates in sanctions screening

On this page

A year is useful evidence without being a complete date

Sanctions records can contain a birth year, a month, a full date, a range, several alternatives, or no date at all. Each communicates a different level of precision. Replacing a year with January 1 adds a fact the source did not provide and can create a false contradiction during review.

SanctionsKit inputs accept YYYY, YYYY-MM, or a valid YYYY-MM-DD. Omit an unknown birth date. Source records preserve their original date text and precision, including ranges or uncertainty that a simple request field cannot fully express. Consult the screening input contract before converting an upstream customer field.

Synthetic example: overlapping dates are not full agreement

These examples use invented identities. The subject Mira Calder has birth date 1984-06-18, while a fictional source candidate gives 1984. The year overlaps, but the source does not establish the month or day. Record the relationship as consistent at year precision, with the remaining details unknown.

If the source instead gives 1984-06, the comparison is consistent at month precision. If it gives a reliable full date of 1985-06-18, the dates conflict. Investigate the provenance and any alternative dates before using the difference to resolve identity. A single field comparison is one part of the complete match review.

Preserve ranges, alternatives, and the original wording

A source date described as approximately 1980 is not the same fact as exactly 1980. Likewise, a range such as 1979 to 1982 describes several possible years. An overlapping subject date can be consistent with that range without identifying the person. Keep the source wording available to the reviewer.

Do not select whichever alternative date makes a preferred outcome easiest. Record the alternatives relevant to the comparison and explain what remains unresolved. If an import system only supports full dates, retain the original value separately and leave the derived full-date field empty rather than inventing one.

Separate retrieval, publication, and legal dates

Retrieval time records when SanctionsKit obtained the source file. Publication time records when the publisher says that version was issued, where the publisher provides that fact. A designation’s legal effective date concerns the underlying measure. A file retrieved today may describe a designation effective much earlier.

A website update, HTTP Last-Modified header, or workbook control date is not automatically a legal effective date. Some source exports have no reliable publication timestamp. Unknown dates remain unknown. The dataset directory and version documentation help distinguish operational freshness from the authority’s legal history.

Synthetic example: a fresh download of an older measure

Assume a fictional file was retrieved on September 17, its publisher dated the edition September 15, and an entry says a measure took effect on July 3. Those three dates answer different questions. The retrieval date establishes when the file was obtained, not when the person became listed or when the measure started.

A source may also publish an end date or a historical entry. Read the underlying status, applicable period, and authority reference before drawing a current conclusion. Where source-specific dates affect current matching, retain the stated period and the screening date with the result. An old start date alone does not prove that a measure has ended.

Date handling checklist

Review date handling at the input form, integration boundary, source mapping, and analyst view. A careful source parser cannot repair a customer system that has already replaced every partial date with an invented day.

Keep unknown dates empty and preserve the precision that is actually known.
Validate full dates as real calendar dates instead of accepting impossible values.
Keep alternative dates, ranges, and uncertainty distinguishable in source evidence.
Describe a year or month overlap at its shared precision, without claiming full-date agreement.
Keep retrieval, publisher, and legal effective dates in separately labeled fields.
Record the comparison and its limits when a date influences a review decision.

A useful date comparison note

For the first synthetic example, a useful note would read: subject date 1984-06-18; source provides year 1984 only; consistent at year precision; month and day unknown; additional identity evidence required. This explains why the case remains unresolved more clearly than a note saying dates match.

Retain only the information needed for the investigation and follow your organization’s policy. Evidence retention determines how long the submitted information remains available; a later reviewer cannot reconstruct details that were intentionally deleted.