> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://developer.kyckr.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# UBO Verify – Release Note

> Major release of UBO Verify, Kyckr's cross-border ownership discovery tool, with improved entity resolution, transparency into matching decisions, and clearer reasons for non-continuation.

## Overview

This release contains major improvements to UBO Verify, Kyckr's cross-border ownership discovery tool.

UBO Verify gives you more accurate ownership discovery, complete transparency into matching decisions, and clear next steps when the algorithm needs your input.

Taken together, these enhancements reduce manual research time for analysts, provide stronger audit documentation, and help you achieve higher UBO discovery rates with less guesswork.

### Improved entity resolution

UBO Verify uses a proprietary algorithm to match entity names in the shareholder list of the root company you are verifying with registered companies globally.

An entity is resolved automatically only when the algorithm finds a single, unambiguous match. Where the shareholder record includes a usable address, the match is made within a jurisdiction derived from that address; where it does not, the match is made on the company name alone. Each automatically resolved entity now records the basis of its match in `matchVerificationField`, so you can see how strong the evidence was.

Where matches compete, or a single match is too close to call, nothing is auto-selected — you receive candidate options (with addresses) to choose from, and your selection is recorded for audit. This increases the likelihood of further automated discovery while avoiding a potentially incorrect match.

This is particularly valuable for data sources like UK Companies House, where shareholder declarations often contain only company names without jurisdiction indicators. A name-only match cannot exclude a matching company in another jurisdiction, so `matchVerificationField` lets you flag those weaker matches for closer review.

* **Match basis recorded**: `matchVerificationField` distinguishes a name-only match (`NAME_ONLY`) from a name match within a derived jurisdiction (`NAME_AND_JURISDICTION`)
* **Explicit low-confidence handling**: a `LOW_CONFIDENCE_MATCH` reason when a single match has insufficient confidence, and `COMPANY_NOT_FOUND` when no match is found or multiple companies share the same name — both return candidates with continuation keys
* **Address context for verification**: compare parent-recorded shareholder addresses against resolved entity addresses

### Full audit trail for every resolution decision

Each entity in your ownership tree now documents exactly how it was matched (algorithm or user-selected), preserves the original shareholder information from the root company's declarations, and maintains a complete version history across order IDs.

This means review teams and auditors can trace every decision in your ownership investigation - understanding not just the final structure, but the evidence and logic behind each entity resolution. Whether you're responding to compliance queries, onboarding new team members to ongoing investigations, or supporting escalations, the complete context is preserved and accessible.

* **Entity selection metadata**: See whether each entity was `ALGORITHM` resolved or `USER_SELECTED`
* **Edge-level context**: Shareholder names and addresses as recorded by the parent company
* **Version history**: Full audit trail of continuation decisions across order IDs

### Intelligent guidance on what to do next

New status fields and metrics eliminate guesswork from your UBO investigations. The system now tells you immediately where you stand: Are UBOs identified? Is coverage incomplete? Which profiles should you order for maximum coverage improvement?

You'll see quantified metrics for UBO coverage and shareholding coverage, understand exactly what percentage of ownership remains unordered, and receive prioritized recommendations on which entities to investigate next. The system also uses fuzzy name matching to surface potential consolidated ownership - for instance, when the same beneficial owner appears with slight name variations across different entities' shareholder declarations - helping you identify UBOs that might otherwise remain hidden.

* **Status at a glance**: Know immediately if UBOs are identified, coverage is incomplete, or action is required at each step (e.g. if credit spend limited by the user)
* **Quantified metrics**: UBO coverage, shareholding coverage, and unordered ownership percentages
* **Prioritized recommendations**: Ranked list of profiles to order for maximum coverage improvement (e.g. where paused due to credit spend or user entity selection required)
* **Potential UBO detection**: Fuzzy name matching surfaces hidden consolidated ownership (e.g. where shareholder names vary across entity declarations)

### What stays the same

The ownership graph structure and API compatibility remain unchanged, ensuring seamless integration with your existing workflows.

## Key improvements

### Analysis status

Know immediately whether you've fully identified beneficial owners and what action you need to take.

**Full analysis details at top level:**

```json theme={null}
{
  "uboAnalysisField": {
    "statusField": "INCOMPLETE_REQUIRED_PROFILES",
    "blockingReasonField": "NO_SHAREHOLDERS (FR)"
  }
}
```

**Status values:**

| Status                            | Meaning                                                     |
| --------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| `COMPLETE_UBO_IDENTIFIED`         | All UBOs above threshold have been identified               |
| `COMPLETE_BELOW_THRESHOLD`        | Analysis complete but no entities reached UBO threshold     |
| `INCOMPLETE_REQUIRED_PROFILES`    | Need to order additional company profiles                   |
| `INCOMPLETE_NO_SHAREHOLDERS`      | Root company has no shareholder data available              |
| `INCOMPLETE_BLOCKING_RFNC`        | Ordered profiles have blocking reasons for non-continuation |
| `INCOMPLETE_CIRCULAR_OWNERSHIP`   | Circular ownership structure detected                       |
| `INDETERMINATE_CORRUPT_DATA`      | Shareholder data corrupt                                    |
| `INDETERMINATE_INSUFFICIENT_DATA` | Shareholding coverage is below 100%-threshold               |
| `PLC_NO_SHAREHOLDERS_EXPECTED`    | Public company with expected lack of shareholder data       |
| `UNKNOWN`                         | Fallback value (should not occur in practice)               |

The `blockingReasonField` provides additional context when the status indicates an incomplete analysis, helping you understand what's preventing completion.

### UBO discovery levels

We now distinguish between confirmed UBOs (at or above threshold), and potential UBOs.

Potential UBOs consist of two types:

* Additional discovery could increase the holdings over the threshold.
* Name variations could be hiding aggregrate ownership over the threshold.

For more information, see the below section – 'Potential beneficial owners'

### Coverage metrics

Quantify your analysis quality with precise metrics.

The `metricsField` in `uboAnalysisField` provides objective measurements of how complete your UBO analysis is:

```json theme={null}
{
  "uboAnalysisField": {
    "metricsField": {
      "uboCoverageField": 46.14,
      "shareholdingCoverageField": 100.0,
      "unpurchasedTotalField": 24.06
    }
  }
}
```

**Metric definitions:**

| Metric                      | Description                                       | Use Case                                                                      |
| --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `uboCoverageField`          | Percentage of ownership traced to identified UBOs | Coverage can range from 0 to 100% depending on threshold and ownership values |
| `shareholdingCoverageField` | Percentage of root company analyzed through tree  | Data completeness assessment - must be greather than 100% - threshold         |
| `unpurchasedTotalField`     | Percentage in entities without enhanced profiles  | Gap analysis for continuation strategy                                        |

**Practical interpretations:**

* **100% shareholdingCoverage + low uboCoverage**: You've explored the entire tree but many branches end at companies without enhanced profiles. Use `requiredProfilesField` to prioritize orders.
* **High unpurchasedTotal**: Clear gap to fill. Each profile order will reduce this value and likely improve uboCoverage.

### Shareholder name and address on edges

Edges now include the shareholder name and address as recorded in the company extract. This provides critical transparency for understanding name variations and verifying entity matches.

```json theme={null}
{
  "edgesField": [
    {
      "nodeIdField": "dcc4311c-d1dd-4fe1-9fd6-178f691c2160",
      "typeField": "SHAREHOLDER",
      "percentageField": 11.22,
      "nameField": "ESSO UK LIMITED",
      "addressField": "Ermyn House, Ermyn Way, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 8UX",
      "shareholdingsField": [
        {
          "isJointlyHeldField": false,
          "percentageField": 11.22
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}
```

**How to use edge-level data:**

| Edge Field          | Entity Field               | Comparison Purpose                               |
| ------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
| `edge.nameField`    | `node.entity.nameField`    | Detect name variations and normalization effects |
| `edge.addressField` | `node.entity.addressField` | Verify address consistency across sources        |

**Multi-parent scenarios:**

When the same entity appears as a shareholder in multiple share structures, each entry may record the name differently:

* Entity A records: "ESSO UK LIMITED"
* Entity B records: "ESSO (UK) LTD"
* Resolved entity canonical name: "ESSO UK LIMITED"

The edge-level `nameField` preserves each entity's original shareholder name, enabling you to see exactly what data was used for matching decisions.

### Required profile recommendations

Stop guessing which entities to unwrap next. We prioritize them for you.

The `requiredProfilesField` array in `uboAnalysisField` tells you exactly which companies need enhanced profile data, ranked by potential impact:

```json theme={null}
{
  "uboAnalysisField": {
    "requiredProfilesField": [
      {
        "entityIdField": "9c1b25c1-6a63-427f-8154-05c03a1dbf24",
        "entityNameField": "INDEX VENTURES IX (JERSEY) L.P.",
        "companyCodeField": "REG123"
      },
      {
        "entityIdField": "df324799-07dd-4b6a-b400-698626aa15ac",
        "entityNameField": "PACIFIC HOLDINGS LIMITED"
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

### Potential beneficial owners

Detect hidden consolidated ownership through name matching, and/or unordered profiles.

Some beneficial owners appear under multiple name variations—"John Smith" and "J. Smith" might be the same person. The `potentialBeneficialOwnersField` in `uboAnalysisField` helps to identify these potential matches:

```json theme={null}
{
  "uboAnalysisField": {
    "potentialBeneficialOwnersField": [
      {
        "canonicalNameField": "JONATHAN DAVIES",
        "totalOwnershipField": 29.62,
        "isFuzzyGroupField": true,
        "membersField": [
          {
            "nameField": "Jonathan Gray Davies",
            "ownershipField": 5.56
          },
          {
            "nameField": "JONATHAN GRAY DAVIES",
            "ownershipField": 0.0
          },
          {
            "nameField": "J. Davies",
            "ownershipField": 24.06
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "canonicalNameField": "THOMAS WALKER",
        "totalOwnershipField": 30.94,
        "isFuzzyGroupField": false
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

**How grouping works:**

* `isFuzzyGroupField: true` – Members identified through name similarity (first name + last name matching)
* `isFuzzyGroupField: false` – Exact name matches or single-member group (no matching needed)
* `canonicalNameField` – Representative name chosen for the group (normalized)
* `totalOwnershipField` – Sum of all members' ownership percentages

**Use case:** In the example above, if "Jonathan Gray Davies" and "J. Davies" are the same person, their combined 29.62% ownership would exceed a 25% UBO threshold—flagging them for verification even though each individual entry is below threshold.

**Note:** Fuzzy matching is conservative and based on first name + last name similarity. You should verify these matches through additional due diligence before concluding they're the same individual.

### Entity resolution & continuation tracking

Track exactly how each entity was resolved and maintain a complete audit trail of your ownership tree's evolution through continuations.

When UBO Verify encounters ambiguous company matches (multiple companies with the same name), you use continuation keys to specify which entity to include. These new fields document those decisions and track how your ownership tree has evolved over time.

#### Improved entity resolution algorithm

The entity resolution algorithm resolves an entity automatically only when it finds a single, unambiguous match. Where the shareholder record carries a usable address, the match is made within a jurisdiction derived from that address; otherwise it is made on the company name alone. Each automatic resolution records the basis of its match in `matchVerificationField`:

* `NAME_ONLY` — matched on company name alone, with no jurisdiction filter applied. This is the weakest basis: a name search does not cover every jurisdiction and company names are not globally unique, so a matching entity in another jurisdiction cannot be excluded. It warrants closer review.
* `NAME_AND_JURISDICTION` — matched on company name within a jurisdiction derived from the shareholder address. A stronger basis, though the jurisdiction is a best-effort derivation rather than a verified address match.

**When the algorithm does not auto-resolve:**

Where matches compete, or a single match is too low-confidence to accept, nothing is auto-selected:

1. A single match with insufficient confidence returns a `LOW_CONFIDENCE_MATCH` reason.
2. No match — or several companies sharing the same name — returns a `COMPANY_NOT_FOUND` reason.
3. Both surface candidate options with continuation keys for explicit selection.

You'll then see `USER_SELECTED` entries in `entitySelectionMetadataField` wherever you resolve one of these manually — each a verified choice.

#### COMPANY\_NOT\_FOUND handling

When the algorithm cannot confidently resolve an entity, it returns a `COMPANY_NOT_FOUND` reason with candidate details:

```json theme={null}
{
  "reasonForNonContinuationField": {
    "typeField": "COMPANY_NOT_FOUND",
    "detailsField": "Multiple matches with the same name in the same jurisdiction",
    "candidatesField": [
      {
        "companyNameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LTD",
        "companyIdField": "12345678",
        "countryIsoField": "GB",
        "addressField": "123 Business Park, London",
        "continuationKeyField": "ba26a0bb-f632-4421-8092-58ed3a76d3be"
      },
      {
        "companyNameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LIMITED",
        "companyIdField": "87654321",
        "countryIsoField": "GB",
        "addressField": "456 Industrial Estate, Manchester",
        "continuationKeyField": "cd38b1cc-g743-5532-9193-69fe4b87e4cf"
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

**Resolving low-confidence matches:**

1. Review the `candidatesField` array - each candidate includes address for verification
2. Compare addresses against known shareholder records or other due diligence sources
3. Select the correct candidate by including its `continuationKeyField` in your next request
4. The selected entity will appear with `sourceField: "USER_SELECTED"` in `entitySelectionMetadataField`

#### Entity addresses

All entities in the ownership tree now include their legal or registered address when available from Enhanced Profile data:

```json theme={null}
{
  "nodesField": [
    {
      "levelField": 2,
      "entityField": {
        "idField": "dac4985e-501d-41f7-933b-44c0b8de0f54",
        "typeField": "COMPANY",
        "nameField": "WOLTERS KLUWER HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED",
        "countryISOField": "GB",
        "companyCodeField": "01329311",
        "addressField": "145 London Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 6SR"
      }
    }
  ]
}
```

The `addressField` helps you quickly identify specific entities and provides additional context for company verification without needing to fetch the full Enhanced Profile.

#### Entity selection metadata

Every node now documents how that entity was selected with the `entitySelectionMetadataField`. An algorithm-resolved node records when it was resolved in `dateSelectedField` and the basis of its match in `matchVerificationField`:

```json theme={null}
{
  "entitySelectionMetadataField": {
    "sourceField": "ALGORITHM",
    "dateSelectedField": "2026-01-14T07:49:43.2377905Z",
    "matchVerificationField": "NAME_AND_JURISDICTION"
  }
}
```

A node you resolved yourself via continuation records the continuation key used:

```json theme={null}
{
  "entitySelectionMetadataField": {
    "sourceField": "USER_SELECTED",
    "continuationKeyField": "15ce9621-87f9-49b5-bac2-6497b2c38cd9",
    "dateSelectedField": "2026-01-14T07:49:43.2377905Z"
  }
}
```

**Selection source types:**

| Source          | Meaning                                                                          | Additional fields                                                  |
| --------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| `ALGORITHM`     | Entity automatically resolved on a single unambiguous match                      | `matchVerificationField` (basis of the match), `dateSelectedField` |
| `USER_SELECTED` | Entity you selected via continuation key when the algorithm did not auto-resolve | `continuationKeyField`, `dateSelectedField`                        |

**Note:** When the algorithm encounters a `LOW_CONFIDENCE_MATCH` status (due to insufficient confidence for automatic resolution), it will stop and provide candidate options with continuation keys. After you select a candidate using the continuation key, that entity will appear with `sourceField: "USER_SELECTED"` in the `entitySelectionMetadataField`.

#### Continuation selection history

The `selectedCandidatesField` provides a complete audit trail of every continuation decision:

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "selectedCandidatesField": [
      {
        "parentNodeIdField": "2e777682-3efc-478f-8472-fd78efb7f60e",
        "candidateField": {
          "companyNameField": "WOLTERS KLUWER HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED",
          "companyIdField": "01329311",
          "countryIsoField": "GB",
          "addressField": "145 LONDON ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY",
          "continuationKeyField": "15ce9621-87f9-49b5-bac2-6497b2c38cd9"
        },
        "nodeIdField": "dac4985e-501d-41f7-933b-44c0b8de0f54",
        "dateSelectedField": "2026-01-14T07:49:43.2377905Z",
        "orderIdField": "332003"
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

**What this tells you:**

* **Parent node:** Where in the tree multiple candidates appeared (`parentNodeIdField`)
* **Selected candidate:** Which specific company you chose from the options (`candidateField`)
* **Resulting node:** The node ID that was created from this selection (`nodeIdField`)
* **When selected:** Timestamp of the decision (`dateSelectedField`)
* **Which version:** The order ID when this selection was made (`orderIdField`)

This creates a complete decision log showing exactly which companies were chosen when multiple matches existed.

#### Ownership tree version history

The `previousVersionsField` tracks the evolution of your ownership tree through multiple continuations:

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "idField": "331997",
    "previousVersionsField": ["332003", "331999"]
  }
}
```

**How version chains work:**

1. Initial UBO request creates order ID `331999`
2. Encounter ambiguous match, select continuation → creates order ID `332003`
3. Select another continuation → creates current order ID `331997`
4. Current tree's `previousVersionsField` shows: `["332003", "331999"]`

**Example workflow:**

```bash theme={null}
# Initial request encounters ambiguity
curl -X GET "https://rest.kyckr.com/core/uboverify/create/GB/12345678?maxCreditCost=100"
# Returns order 331999 with candidate options

# Continue with selected candidate
curl -X GET "https://rest.kyckr.com/core/uboverify/create/GB/12345678?continuationKeys=15ce9621-87f9-49b5-bac2-6497b2c38cd9"
# Returns order 332003, previousVersionsField: ["331999"]

# Continue again with another candidate
curl -X GET "https://rest.kyckr.com/core/uboverify/create/GB/12345678?continuationKeys=812a3543-2e95-4bda-a357-88b023392f28"
# Returns order 331997, previousVersionsField: ["332003", "331999"]
```

#### Complete example

Here's how all the entity resolution fields work together in a real ownership tree:

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "idField": "331997",
    "nameField": "D. Schwarz Beteiligungs-KG",
    "nodesField": [
      {
        "levelField": 1,
        "entityField": {
          "idField": "9f1044f1-93ce-4c8c-85fc-f051eebefe15",
          "typeField": "COMPANY",
          "nameField": "D. Schwarz Beteiligungs-KG",
          "addressField": "Rötelstr. 35, 74172 Neckarsulm, Germany",
          "countryISOField": "DE",
          "companyCodeField": "HRA 736370"
        }
      },
      {
        "levelField": 2,
        "entityField": {
          "idField": "dac4985e-501d-41f7-933b-44c0b8de0f54",
          "typeField": "COMPANY",
          "nameField": "WOLTERS KLUWER HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED",
          "addressField": "145 London Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 6SR",
          "countryISOField": "GB",
          "companyCodeField": "01329311"
        },
        "entitySelectionMetadataField": {
          "sourceField": "USER_SELECTED",
          "continuationKeyField": "15ce9621-87f9-49b5-bac2-6497b2c38cd9",
          "dateSelectedField": "2026-01-14T07:49:43.2377905Z"
        }
      }
    ],
    "selectedCandidatesField": [
      {
        "parentNodeIdField": "9f1044f1-93ce-4c8c-85fc-f051eebefe15",
        "candidateField": {
          "companyNameField": "WOLTERS KLUWER HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED",
          "companyIdField": "01329311",
          "continuationKeyField": "15ce9621-87f9-49b5-bac2-6497b2c38cd9"
        },
        "nodeIdField": "dac4985e-501d-41f7-933b-44c0b8de0f54",
        "orderIdField": "332003"
      }
    ],
    "previousVersionsField": ["332003", "331999"]
  }
}
```

In this example:

* The root company (level 1) was automatically resolved (`sourceField: "ALGORITHM"`)
* The level 2 company was manually selected via continuation (`sourceField: "USER_SELECTED"`)
* The `selectedCandidatesField` shows which candidate was chosen and when
* The `previousVersionsField` shows two prior versions before reaching the current state
* Both entities include their registered addresses for easy identification

#### End-to-end workflow: Resolving a COMPANY\_NOT\_FOUND

This example shows the complete workflow from encountering a low-confidence match to resolving it with user selection.

**Step 1: Initial request returns COMPANY\_NOT\_FOUND**

```bash theme={null}
curl -X GET "https://rest.kyckr.com/core/uboverify/create/GB/12345678?maxCreditCost=100"
```

Response (order 331999):

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "idField": "331999",
    "nodesField": [
      {
        "levelField": 2,
        "entityField": {
          "nameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LTD",
          "reasonForNonContinuationField": {
            "typeField": "COMPANY_NOT_FOUND",
            "detailsField": "Multiple matches with the same name in the same jurisdiction",
            "candidatesField": [
              {
                "companyNameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LTD",
                "addressField": "123 Business Park, London",
                "continuationKeyField": "ba26a0bb-f632-4421-8092-58ed3a76d3be"
              },
              {
                "companyNameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LIMITED",
                "addressField": "456 Industrial Estate, Manchester",
                "continuationKeyField": "cd38b1cc-g743-5532-9193-69fe4b87e4cf"
              }
            ]
          }
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

**Step 2: User reviews candidate addresses**

Compare the candidate addresses against your source data:

* Your records show the shareholder is at "123 Business Park, London"
* First candidate matches - use its continuation key

**Step 3: Continue with selected candidate**

```bash theme={null}
curl -X GET "https://rest.kyckr.com/core/uboverify/create/GB/12345678?continuationKeys=ba26a0bb-f632-4421-8092-58ed3a76d3be"
```

Response (order 332003):

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "idField": "332003",
    "nodesField": [
      {
        "levelField": 2,
        "entityField": {
          "nameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LTD",
          "addressField": "123 Business Park, London"
        },
        "entitySelectionMetadataField": {
          "sourceField": "USER_SELECTED",
          "continuationKeyField": "ba26a0bb-f632-4421-8092-58ed3a76d3be",
          "dateSelectedField": "2026-01-15T10:45:00.0000000Z"
        }
      }
    ],
    "selectedCandidatesField": [
      {
        "candidateField": {
          "companyNameField": "ACME HOLDINGS LTD",
          "continuationKeyField": "ba26a0bb-f632-4421-8092-58ed3a76d3be"
        },
        "orderIdField": "331999"
      }
    ],
    "previousVersionsField": ["331999"]
  }
}
```

**Result:** The entity now appears with `USER_SELECTED` source, providing a complete audit trail of who made the decision, when, and why.

## Migration notes

All new fields are **backwards compatible** additions. Existing API integrations will continue to work without modification.

### Analysis fields

* The `uboAnalysisField` is recommended to guide the UBO discovery process to the required goal, limited only by registry data.
* Existing `ultimateBeneficialOwnersField` structure is unchanged; new fields extend the schema
* All existing request parameters and response fields remain unchanged

### Entity resolution fields

* The `addressField` is added to entity and edge objects when address data is available from Enhanced Profiles
* The `entitySelectionMetadataField` appears on nodes to document how entities were resolved
  * Only present for entities that were explicitly resolved (either by algorithm or user selection)
  * Contains `sourceField` (ALGORITHM or USER\_SELECTED) with optional continuation details
* The `selectedCandidatesField` is populated only when continuations have been used
  * Provides audit trail of which candidates were selected during disambiguation
* The `previousVersionsField` is populated only when the current tree is a continuation of prior versions
  * Shows the order ID chain leading to the current ownership tree state

### Adoption timeline

If you're not yet using these features, your responses will look exactly as before—you can adopt these enhancements at your own pace. All fields are designed to enhance existing functionality without breaking changes.

## Example response

Here's what a complete response looks like with analysis insights:

```json theme={null}
{
  "ownershipTreeField": {
    "idField": "2700226",
    "nameField": "HAND MADE HAIR LTD",
    "addressField": "Unit 1, Example Business Park, London, GB",
    "statusField": "SUCCESS",
    "uboThresholdField": 25,
    "nodesField": [
      {
        "levelField": 1,
        "entityField": {
          "idField": "0c7f23d9-30ca-41bb-8733-31d0180bbc8a",
          "typeField": "COMPANY",
          "nameField": "HAND MADE HAIR LTD",
          "countryISOField": "GB",
          "companyCodeField": "09439563"
        },
        "edgesField": [
          {
            "nodeIdField": "907bae93-f2d4-4c8c-95b2-f10fe9c89f2f",
            "typeField": "SHAREHOLDER",
            "percentageField": 46.14
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "levelField": 2,
        "entityField": {
          "idField": "907bae93-f2d4-4c8c-95b2-f10fe9c89f2f",
          "typeField": "PERSON",
          "nameField": "JOSHUA JOHN WOOD",
          "countryISOField": "GB"
        },
        "edgesField": []
      }
    ],
    "ultimateBeneficialOwnersField": [
      {
        "idField": "907bae93-f2d4-4c8c-95b2-f10fe9c89f2f",
        "nameField": "JOSHUA JOHN WOOD",
        "percentageField": "46.14",
        "entityTypeField": "PERSON"
      }
    ]
  },
  "uboAnalysisField": {
    "statusField": "INCOMPLETE_REQUIRED_PROFILES",
    "blockingReasonField": "",
    "metricsField": {
      "uboCoverageField": 46.14,
      "shareholdingCoverageField": 100.0,
      "unpurchasedTotalField": 24.06
    },
    "requiredProfilesField": [
      {
        "entityIdField": "5ac26d8e-0ade-4c28-9a3d-f490a07adfad",
        "entityNameField": "INDEX VENTURES IX (JERSEY) L.P.",
        "companyCodeField": "REG123"
      }
    ],
    "potentialBeneficialOwnersField": [
      {
        "canonicalNameField": "JONATHAN DAVIES",
        "totalOwnershipField": 29.62,
        "isFuzzyGroupField": true,
        "membersField": [
          {
            "nameField": "Jonathan Gray Davies",
            "ownershipField": 5.56
          },
          {
            "nameField": "Jonathan Davies",
            "ownershipField": 24.06
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}
```

## Additional resources

* [UBO Verify Guide](/documentation/features/unwrap-ownership)