People intelligence

Corporate Registrations tells you the company is real. People intelligence tells you who runs it. It answers the questions diligence asks about a counterparty’s leadership. Who is accountable. How deep the bench is. Whether anyone named is carrying a sanctions listing, an enforcement action, or a live investigation. It answers them from public sources, without contacting the vendor. The page sits under Vendor Intelligence, in the same row as Corporate Registrations, Financial Health and Security Intelligence.

Confirmed and unconfirmed are not the same thing

This distinction shapes the whole page, so it is worth understanding first. People research is dominated by one failure mode: namesakes. Search the leadership of a mid-sized company and you will reliably surface a better-known executive with the same name at a different firm. Presenting that person as the vendor’s CFO is worse than returning nothing, because it looks like a finding. Every name therefore lands in one of two groups.

Confirmed

Tied to this vendor by a source that resolved through the vendor’s own domain, or by a matched professional profile. These are the only names that are counted, charted, or scored.

Unconfirmed

Surfaced in research but not tied to this vendor with confidence. Shown so you can judge them, and excluded from every count on the page.

Do not quote an unconfirmed name as the vendor’s staff. It is a research lead, not a finding. The section exists so you can see what was considered and set aside, which is more useful than dropping it silently.

What the page shows

Coverage. Confirmed people, executives and board currently serving, how many of those are corroborated by a registry filing, and how many were screened for news. A person named as an officer in a public filing is a stronger claim than one scraped from a leadership page, so the two are counted separately. Adverse media and screening. Negative news, sanctions matches and enforcement matters tied to the people above. Each finding carries a category, a severity, an outcome, and a link to the source. Reporting lines. Where published reporting relationships could be established, they are drawn as a tree. This is partial by nature. It reflects what is public, not the vendor’s internal org chart. People. A card per person: title, role, tenure, prior roles, other board seats, and links to the profiles that back them. Former staff are labelled rather than dropped, because a recent executive departure is often the thing you wanted to know.

How the research runs

Screening is not a single “bad news” search. For each person, four separate queries run against news sources, covering litigation, regulatory and enforcement action, financial crime, and abrupt departures. The overlap between those corpora is small: a regulator’s action rarely appears in the same results as a bankruptcy filing. The results are then read into structured findings, with one instruction that matters more than the rest: discard anything that cannot be tied to this person at this company. Returning nothing is the correct answer for a person with no adverse coverage. Screening is bounded and works top down. Founders and executives are screened first, then the board, then other leadership. The page records how many people were screened, and each person’s card says whether they were among them.

A person who was not screened has not been cleared. Their card says so. This matters most on a large leadership team, where the tail of the list is exactly where an unscreened name could hide.

Severity and outcome are separate

A dismissed fraud claim and a fraud conviction sit in the same category and are nowhere near the same fact. Every finding carries both a severity (how serious the matter is) and an outcome (where it got to: alleged, under investigation, settled, concluded, dismissed, or unclear).

A finding marked Dismissed deducts nothing from the score. Scoring a claim the subject was cleared of would let anyone impose a lasting cost on a vendor by filing something that fails.

Findings the subject publicly contests are marked as disputed and shown with that label, so you are never handed one side of a contested matter as settled fact.

No findings and not screened are different

If screening could not run, because a source was unreachable or the vendor has not been researched yet, the page says Not screened. It does not show a zero. A zero reads as a clean record. The two mean opposite things. Everywhere this data appears, on the page, in the Zero Touch score, through the API, or to an agent over MCP, an unscreened vendor is reported as unknown. This also governs scoring. When screening has not run, the People component of a Zero Touch Score deducts nothing at all, and labels itself so nobody reads the number as a clean bill of health.

Where the data comes from

Source	What it contributes
Org chart data	Serving staff resolved through the vendor’s own domain, with titles, reporting lines and profile links
Web research	Leadership named on the vendor’s own site and in public profiles
Public registers	Officers and directors named in corporate filings
News search	Litigation, regulatory action, financial crime and departure coverage, per person
Sanctions lists	OFAC SDN and consolidated screening against the confirmed names

A sanctions match is reported at high severity, always with the caveat that name similarity is not identity. Confirm against the listing itself before acting on one.

Using it

Reach for the page before an assessment, to see whether there is an accountable leadership team at all. A vendor with nobody on record is not disqualified, but it is a different conversation. Turn on the People component in Zero Touch scoring when you want leadership visibility and adverse media to feed triage directly. See Zero Touch Assessments. Agents reach the same dossier over MCP with query_vendors(kind="leadership", vendor_id="cbvndr_..."). That is distinct from kind="people", which returns your own team’s owners and watchers on the vendor.

Limits worth knowing

Coverage reflects what a company publishes. A private company that names nobody publicly will show little here, and that is a fact about its disclosure rather than its governance. Reporting lines are reconstructed from published relationships and are usually incomplete. People sharing a name are kept as separate records rather than merged. A nickname and a legal first name appear as two people. A visible duplicate is a better failure than a wrongly merged pair. Politically exposed status is recorded as a fact calling for enhanced diligence. It is not a finding against the person. None of this is a background check. It is open-source research, and it is where a conversation starts rather than where a judgement about an individual ends.