Calibrate identity matching for access-review evidence
Identity evidence tends to become fragile when several systems describe the same person differently.
Higher automation can reduce review effort while making a small number of wrong links more consequential.
“I can handle a few exceptions, but I can’t ask reviewers to second-guess every suggested match.”
Feng Fujita · GRC Program Manager
Coordinates quarterly access reviews for a healthcare software company with employees and contractors across multiple identity systems.
What pulls against what
- match coverage vs. wrong-person risk
- automation throughput vs. reviewer trust
- richer features vs. privacy constraints
- vendor speed vs. product-specific fit
What is at stake
Incorrect matches undermine evidence credibility, while excessive abstention slows reviewers. The goal is defensible automation with manageable exceptions
Why Vanta
At Vanta, the tension often matters because identity linkage underpins the credibility of access-review evidence.
Written for
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.