A graph resolves evidence. It cannot invent relationships that sources never emit.
Evidence becomes identity
Resolution path
Sources
Anonymous ID
Customer ID
→
Evidence
Identity events
→
Resolution
Identity graph
→
Consumer view
Unified profile
Generic diagram. It does not reproduce a client architecture.
Identity fragmentation is often described as a CDP problem when the real failure sits in the data contract. If two event families never carry overlapping identifiers, the graph cannot prove that they belong to the same person.
Controlled stitching may be necessary in the short term. The durable answer is usually upstream: authoritative systems must emit enough shared evidence.
Production signals
The same customer appears as several active profiles.
Web and business events share no namespace.
Stitching depends on replaying data on a schedule.
Recommended architecture
Define an identity contract per event family, with explicit namespace, authority, persistence and validation.
Treat any stopgap stitching as debt, with an owner and a retirement condition.
When not to apply it
Do not join profiles with probabilistic or ambiguous evidence.
Do not set up stitching when the source can be corrected within the same window.