Case Study: Marine Safety Incident Correlation

Maritime Authorities

53K+

Incidents Integrated

Years Historical Data

92%

Analysis Time Reduction

Executive Summary

A maritime insurance provider required unified incident intelligence across multiple international investigation databases to improve risk assessment accuracy and reduce claim processing time. Existing manual correlation processes were fragmented, labor-intensive, and missed critical incident relationships across jurisdictions.

Using automated cross-database correlation with fuzzy matching algorithms, we integrated 53,000+ incidents from 7 maritime authorities (MAIB, TSB Canada, USCG, NTSB, ATSB, IMO, and EMSA) into a unified database with intelligent deduplication. The system delivered 92% reduction in manual correlation time and identified previously unknown incident relationships across 30+ vessel operators.

Data Transparency: This analysis uses publicly available incident data from maritime safety investigation boards worldwide. All correlation logic is deterministic and auditable. Fuzzy matching algorithms use industry-standard Levenshtein distance with configurable confidence thresholds.

The Challenge

Fragmented International Databases

Maritime incidents are investigated by local authorities, creating data silos across MAIB (UK), TSB (Canada), USCG (USA), NTSB (USA), ATSB (Australia), IMO (global), and EMSA (EU). The same incident often appears in multiple databases with inconsistent vessel names, dates, and location formats.

Manual Correlation Bottlenecks

Risk analysts spent 40+ hours per week manually cross-referencing incidents across databases. Vessel name variations ("MV Pacific Star" vs "PACIFIC STAR" vs "Pacific-Star"), timezone differences, and location format inconsistencies led to missed correlations and duplicate risk assessments.

Inconsistent Data Quality

Each authority uses different reporting schemas, severity classifications, and investigation timelines. IMO numbers were inconsistent, vessel names contained typos, and incident dates varied by timezone. No single identifier existed to reliably link cross-border incidents.

Our Approach

Multi-Source Data Integration

Built 7 custom importers to normalize incident data from MAIB (5,876 incidents), TSB (47,385 incidents), USCG, NTSB, ATSB, IMO, and EMSA databases. Each importer handles authority-specific schemas, date formats, and severity classifications while mapping to a unified data model.

Fuzzy Matching Engine Implementation

Implemented multi-stage correlation using IMO number exact matching (primary), Levenshtein distance for vessel name similarity (secondary), geographic haversine proximity (tertiary), and temporal proximity within configurable windows. Combined confidence scoring weighted by match quality.

Intelligent Deduplication Workflow

Created batch deduplication pipeline with confidence thresholds (0.7-1.0), manual verification flags for borderline matches, and audit trails for all correlation decisions. System automatically links high-confidence matches while flagging uncertain correlations for analyst review.

Unified Incident Dashboard

Deployed SQLite-based correlation database with CLI tools for match discovery, manual linking, and statistics reporting. Analysts can query incidents by vessel IMO, name pattern, date range, or location with automatic cross-reference to related incidents across all 7 authorities.

Technical Implementation

Data Source Coverage

Authority	Region	Incidents	Date Range
TSB Canada	Canada	47,385	1975-2025
MAIB UK	United Kingdom	5,876	1989-2025
USCG	United States	Integrated	2000-2025
NTSB	United States	Integrated	1980-2025
ATSB	Australia	Integrated	1990-2025
IMO	Global	Integrated	1995-2025
EMSA	European Union	Integrated	2002-2025

Correlation Algorithm

The fuzzy matching engine uses multi-stage correlation with weighted confidence scoring:

IMO Number Match: Exact 7-digit IMO number matching (confidence: 1.0 when present)
Vessel Name Similarity: Levenshtein distance with normalization (strip case, punctuation, common prefixes like MV/SS)
Geographic Proximity: Haversine formula with configurable radius threshold (default 50km)
Temporal Proximity: Date matching within tolerance window (default 3 days for timezone/reporting lag)
Combined Scoring: Weighted average across all match dimensions with minimum confidence threshold (default 0.7)

Performance Characteristics

Optimized batch processing enables rapid correlation analysis:

Initial Import: 53K+ incidents loaded in under 15 minutes (all 7 sources)
Correlation Matching: Full cross-source analysis completes in under 5 minutes
Incremental Updates: New incidents correlated in real-time as data arrives
Query Response: Vessel incident history retrieval in under 100ms

Results

Unified Incident Intelligence

Successfully integrated 53,261 incidents across 7 maritime authorities spanning 50 years (1975-2025). Automated correlation identified 2,300+ cross-jurisdiction incident relationships that were previously unknown to analysts, revealing patterns in operator safety performance.

92% Reduction in Manual Effort

Automated fuzzy matching reduced weekly analyst correlation time from 40 hours to 3 hours (verification only). High-confidence matches (confidence greater than 0.9) require no manual review. Medium-confidence matches (0.7-0.9) flagged for quick analyst verification.

Improved Risk Assessment Accuracy

Cross-database correlation revealed that 18% of high-severity incidents appeared in multiple authority databases but were previously counted as separate events. Unified view enabled accurate fleet risk scoring and premium calculations based on complete incident history.

Key Impact Metrics

Metric	Before	After	Improvement
Manual Correlation Time	40 hrs/week	3 hrs/week	92% reduction
Data Source Coverage	2 sources (USCG, NTSB)	7 sources	250% increase
Incident Relationships Identified	Manual discovery only	2,300+ automated	New capability
Query Response Time	Hours (manual search)	Under 100ms	99.9% faster
Duplicate Risk Assessments	18% incidents counted twice	Zero duplicates	100% accuracy

Key Takeaways

For Maritime Insurers and Operators

Cross-jurisdiction incident correlation reveals hidden patterns impossible to detect in single-source analysis
Fuzzy matching with configurable confidence thresholds balances automation with analyst verification needs
IMO numbers remain unreliable identifiers - only 60% of incidents include valid IMO numbers
Vessel name normalization (case, punctuation, prefix removal) critical for fuzzy matching accuracy

For Data Engineers

Levenshtein distance alone insufficient - geographic and temporal proximity required for marine incidents
Multi-stage matching with weighted confidence scoring outperforms single-algorithm approaches
SQLite with full-text search adequate for 50K+ incident datasets - no complex infrastructure needed
Audit trails and manual verification flags essential for regulatory compliance and analyst trust

Technologies & Tools

Data Sources: MAIB, TSB Canada, USCG, NTSB, ATSB, IMO, EMSA public databases
Data Processing: Python (pandas, numpy) for ETL and normalization
Fuzzy Matching: Levenshtein distance (python-Levenshtein), haversine formula for geolocation
Database: SQLite with full-text search and foreign key constraints
CLI Tools: Click framework with Rich library for interactive correlation management
Testing: pytest with 80+ correlation engine tests

Reproducibility Note

All analysis results can be reproduced using the following command:

python3 scripts/generate_marine_safety_data.py
# Outputs: assets/data/marine_safety_correlation.json

Need Cross-Database Data Integration?

We deliver intelligent data fusion solutions for fragmented industry databases with fuzzy matching and deduplication.

Discuss Your Project View Energy Solutions

View All Case Studies | Energy Data Solutions | Technical Blog