The three records that are supposed to agree, and do not
A credential says a provider is licensed. A participation says they are in this network for this product. A directory record says what members were told. Attergo holds all three separately, so a report can name which one is wrong and who owns it.
One flag cannot hold three facts
Collapsed into a single in-network boolean, a provider whose licence lapsed in March, a provider who was never contracted for this line of business, and a provider whose published address is two years old all look identical. They are three problems for three teams. One of them stops a claim from paying. Another is a regulatory finding.
The mechanism behind it.
Separate records, separate lifecycles
Credentials, participations and directory entries are distinct, each carrying its own dates and its own owner. A report can name the record that is wrong instead of reporting that something is.
A detector that closes findings as well as raising them
Running it again does not pile up copies, a finding that has been put right closes itself, and each open finding keeps its original detection date. Ageing the queue reports how long a problem has stood.
Delegation oversight with a real due date
Delegating credentialing does not delegate responsibility for it. The next review date is computed from the cadence and the last review, so it cannot quietly be typed forward.
Adequacy you can stand behind
The network report counts participation minus the providers carrying an open finding. A terminated provider on a lapsed licence does not count toward network breadth.