Cross-jurisdiction analysis
What an agency status string actually means
Filing agencies publish an entity's status as a short string. There is no national vocabulary, agencies do not publish a legend, and the same words mean different things in different states. This record maps 2,713 distinct observed status strings across 51 jurisdictions to a good-standing verdict: 247 mean in good standing, 1,636 mean not in good standing, and 830 are deliberately left unresolved because the string is genuinely ambiguous.
1 further row held back from every page on this site. In those cases the agency status column had captured a filing agent's company name instead of a status. They are a defect in the observed vocabulary rather than a status anyone needs decoded, they name a private party, and the record is CO. Counted here, printed nowhere.
The one dataset that can never carry a green tick, and why we publish it anyway
These verdicts are derived from status strings observed on agency systems over time. They are not read off a legend the agency publishes, because in most states no such legend exists. 2,319 of the rows have been through final review and ratified, which is a higher bar than most of this site clears - and it still cannot make them verified, because the provenance is an internal observation record rather than an agency publication. No amount of further review fixes that. So the decoder is published with the derivation stated plainly and no agency citation claimed, which is the honest treatment of a genuinely useful dataset that has no citable authority.
The 830 unresolved rows are the most valuable part. They are the strings on which an automated compliance decision should not be made, and marking them is a deliberate act rather than an absence of work.
Strings that appear in the most jurisdictions
Where the same string carries different verdicts in different states, the meaning column shows more than one value. That is the whole argument for a per-state decoder rather than a national glossary.
| Observed status | Jurisdictions | Verdicts recorded |
|---|---|---|
| NOT YET FILED | 51 | unknown |
| NOT FILED | 51 | unknown |
| ACTIVE | 51 | in good standing |
| (BLANK) | 51 | unknown |
| FILED IN <YEAR> | 50 | unknown |
| DISSOLVED | 46 | not in good standing |
| REVOKED | 45 | not in good standing |
| WITHDRAWN | 44 | not in good standing |
| INACTIVE | 36 | not in good standing, unknown |
| UNKNOWN | 35 | unknown |
| NON SOS | 34 | unknown |
| MERGED | 29 | not in good standing |
| DEFAULT | 27 | not in good standing |
| NOT SOS FILED | 26 | unknown |
Vocabulary size by jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction | Strings | Good | Not good | Unresolved | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID Idaho | 435 | 39 | 313 | 83 | 357 |
| NY New York | 120 | 4 | 102 | 14 | 114 |
| MD Maryland | 118 | 14 | 17 | 87 | 37 |
| TX Texas | 91 | 20 | 44 | 27 | 78 |
| VA Virginia | 91 | 3 | 74 | 14 | 85 |
| AZ Arizona | 84 | 5 | 54 | 25 | 79 |
| UT Utah | 75 | 7 | 51 | 17 | 71 |
| DE Delaware | 70 | 4 | 47 | 19 | 57 |
| GA Georgia | 65 | 10 | 30 | 25 | 55 |
| MI Michigan | 55 | 1 | 32 | 22 | 41 |
| NJ New Jersey | 54 | 6 | 31 | 17 | 47 |
| NC North Carolina | 53 | 8 | 28 | 17 | 45 |
| NH New Hampshire | 53 | 2 | 32 | 19 | 51 |
| NM New Mexico | 53 | 5 | 29 | 19 | 42 |
| ME Maine | 52 | 3 | 26 | 23 | 36 |
| KS Kansas | 51 | 5 | 29 | 17 | 47 |
| CA California | 49 | 4 | 26 | 19 | 38 |
| IL Illinois | 48 | 3 | 33 | 12 | 42 |
| WY Wyoming | 48 | 4 | 38 | 6 | 46 |
| PA Pennsylvania | 45 | 3 | 24 | 18 | 41 |
| TN Tennessee | 45 | 2 | 37 | 6 | 43 |
| MA Massachusetts | 43 | 6 | 29 | 8 | 40 |
| MO Missouri | 43 | 2 | 29 | 12 | 42 |
| WV West Virginia | 43 | 2 | 27 | 14 | 41 |
| LA Louisiana | 41 | 3 | 29 | 9 | 39 |
| VT Vermont | 41 | 6 | 26 | 9 | 39 |
| CO Colorado | 39 | 5 | 22 | 12 | 34 |
| HI Hawaii | 39 | 1 | 29 | 9 | 35 |
| MT Montana | 39 | 11 | 23 | 5 | 39 |
| OK Oklahoma | 38 | 6 | 23 | 9 | 34 |
| IN Indiana | 37 | 1 | 21 | 15 | 34 |
| NV Nevada | 37 | 3 | 16 | 18 | 31 |
| DC District of Columbia | 36 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 30 |
| ND North Dakota | 36 | 3 | 26 | 7 | 34 |
| CT Connecticut | 35 | 4 | 17 | 14 | 30 |
| SC South Carolina | 35 | 4 | 11 | 20 | 22 |
| WI Wisconsin | 33 | 6 | 20 | 7 | 33 |
| FL Florida | 31 | 3 | 19 | 9 | 30 |
| KY Kentucky | 31 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 25 |
| WA Washington | 30 | 2 | 16 | 12 | 26 |
| MS Mississippi | 29 | 2 | 15 | 12 | 26 |
| SD South Dakota | 29 | 2 | 17 | 10 | 27 |
| AR Arkansas | 27 | 2 | 16 | 9 | 25 |
| IA Iowa | 26 | 1 | 17 | 8 | 24 |
| AL Alabama | 24 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 21 |
| OR Oregon | 24 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 20 |
| AK Alaska | 22 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 21 |
| MN Minnesota | 20 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 20 |
| NE Nebraska | 17 | 1 | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| OH Ohio | 17 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 16 |
| RI Rhode Island | 16 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 13 |
Citation withheld permanently, not temporarily. These verdicts are derived from agency status strings observed over time rather than from any legend the agency publishes, so no agency citation exists and none is claimed.
- Records
- 2,713 rows, 51 jurisdictions
- Review
- 2,319 verified and ratified, 394 provisionally reviewed
- Confidence
- 1,553 high, 766 medium, 394 low
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-04
- Derivation
- observed agency status vocabulary, normalised, then adjudicated per jurisdiction
Publishing a decoder with an explicit derivation caveat is more useful than withholding it, and more honest than dressing it up as an agency legend.