CSC UCC search showing inconsistent results - need verification help

Good point about timing. I'm seeing discrepancies that are weeks old though, not just recent filings. The continuation I'm looking at was filed 3 weeks ago and still shows different status.

Three weeks is way too long for a sync issue. That sounds like a data accuracy problem with CSC's feeds.

Mainly Texas and California. The Texas filings seem especially problematic - seeing UCC-3 continuations that CSC shows as rejected but SOS shows as accepted.

Texas has been having portal issues lately. Their system was down for maintenance last month and I think some of the batch updates got messed up.

California can be tricky too because they have specific formatting requirements that cause rejections if not done exactly right. The continuation might have been refiled.

Interesting - how does the Certana verification work exactly? Does it compare the actual filing numbers and dates?

Yeah exactly. You upload both documents and it extracts all the filing data - debtor names, filing numbers, dates, statuses - and highlights where they don't match. Really helpful for catching these kinds of database sync issues.

That actually sounds useful. I've been doing manual comparisons which is time consuming and error prone.

Totally agree. I always default to the official state database as the source of truth but it's frustrating when expensive search services aren't accurate.

The problem is some states update their databases in real time while others do batch updates overnight. CSC might be pulling from cached data.

Good catch - I did notice some name variations. CSC seems to strip out periods and commas that are in the actual filed documents.

This is exactly why debtor name accuracy is so critical. Even punctuation differences can cause search misses.

Try searching with and without punctuation in both systems. Also check if CSC is doing any automatic name standardization.

That's probably the safest approach but so time consuming when you're dealing with multi-state searches.

Time consuming yes, but better than missing a lien that could blow up a deal.

Worth a try. I'll document the specific filing numbers where I'm seeing differences and reach out to their support.

CSC support is actually pretty responsive when you have specific examples. They fixed a similar issue for me last year.

Definitely worth doing random verification checks. I usually pick 10-15% of results and cross-check them manually.

The Certana tool mentioned earlier might be good for this kind of verification workflow too.

Yeah I'm definitely going to look into that. Manual cross-checking is tedious but necessary.

Good to know. Might be worth getting quotes from multiple search providers and rotating between them.

The problem is switching providers mid-deal can create consistency issues. Better to stick with one but verify the critical results.

Thanks for the update! That explains what I was seeing. Good to know it's a known issue on their end.

At least they acknowledge the problem. Some search services just deny there are any issues.

This is exactly why I always keep backup verification methods. Can't rely on any single source completely.

Appreciate everyone's input on this. Going to implement some of the verification procedures mentioned here to avoid future headaches.