Matching the email is not enough
Illustrative scenario: a client asks about a website on Monday and training on Thursday. Both messages have the same contact, but describe separate jobs. Discarding the second message as a duplicate loses work rather than simplifying the records.
Separate three things. A contact is the person or business you communicate with. An inquiry concerns a specific piece of work. A source event is one form submission or message. One inquiry can have several messages, and one contact can have several inquiries.
Four cases, four decisions
| What arrived | What to do | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The same unchanged form submission again | Find the existing link | This is repeated delivery of one event |
| A new submission with a similar request | Retain it and review the relationship | It may correct or follow up on the request |
| The same contact asking for different work | Create a separate inquiry | Contact identity does not define project scope |
| The same identifier with changed contents | Pause automatic matching | This may be an amendment or a source error |
HubSpot documents contact matching by email. That rule concerns contacts in a specific product. It does not prove that every subsequent message belongs to the same deal.
How the records fit together
Download the illustrative decision records. FORM-101 and its repeated delivery refer to JOB-01. A new FORM-102 from the same contact concerns training and refers to JOB-02. FORM-103 clarifies the website request and links to JOB-01 after review.
Use two linked registers in your process: one for inquiries and another for received messages. Retain the source identifier, arrival time, and original link against each message. Keep the description, responsible person, and next action against the inquiry. The download is a modeled specification, not an automatic merge tool.
Source identifiers should distinguish the application and account too, such as website-form:FORM-101. A spreadsheet row number is not a durable identity because rows can move. If the source supplies no identifier, assign a tracking number to a retained original and review uncertain matches manually.
Where human judgment belongs
An automatic rule can identify replay of a known event more reliably than similarity between two requests. Matching subjects or amounts do not establish the same project. Put uncertain messages into review, assign a named person, and set a review date.
Do not merge messages by deleting their originals. Keep links to both and record why they were connected. Your team can then reconstruct the client’s changes. A changed email address does not necessarily mean a different person either; avoid silently rewriting history.
What to check before automating
Use three harmless examples: repeated delivery, a new request from the same contact, and a change to the original request. Each must produce a different appropriate decision. Then apply the rules to your form-to-record workflow.
HubSpot documentation reviewed October 1, 2026. Identifiers, records, and the decision method are our illustrative model and recommendations, not claims about every CRM’s behavior.
For your own records, use the blank tracker.