To facilitate an efficient profile merge across multiple data sources, theIdentity Servicemust be configured to recognize when different records belong to the same person. This is achieved primarily through the strategic use ofIdentity Namespaces.
Option Eis the foundational step: setting up appropriate namespaces (such as Email, CRM ID, or ECID) provides the necessary context for the platform to link identities.Option Ais the critical tactical approach: for the platform to "stitch" profiles efficiently, disparate data sources must share common namespaces. For example, if both a CRM system and a Web SDK implementation use the standard "Email" namespace for the same email address, theIdentity Graphcan automatically bridge these two sources into a single, unified profile. Using the same namespace across sources prevents the creation of "identity silos" and ensures that the Merge Policycan accurately aggregate all profile fragments into a 360-degree view.
Option B is incorrect because creating separate namespaces for every source would prevent stitching unless another common ID exists to bridge them, leading to fragmented profiles. Option C is incorrect as AEP performs merging automatically based on identity links and merge policies, not manual union tools. Option D is incorrect as the system has fixedIdentity Guardrails(limits on the number of IDs per profile) to maintain performance and prevent "graph collapses" where unrelated individuals are merged.