CONTACT DATA · VALIDATION GUIDE

Mobile number validation API

Give mobile data the context it needs. Keep parsing and numbering-plan checks separate from delivery, channel control, and identity.

A well-formed number is just the start.

structurepass
reachabilitynot_checked
possessionnot_checked

ILLUSTRATIVE SIGNALS · NOT A LIVE RESULT

WHAT TO MAKE EXPLICIT

Design around the evidence.

A result becomes useful when its method, limits, and next action are visible together.

01 / SIGNAL DESIGN

Explicit context

Country context rather than silent guessing. Make the method and any unresolved context visible to the consumer.

02 / SIGNAL DESIGN

Consistent representation

A proposed normalized phone value. Make the method and any unresolved context visible to the consumer.

03 / SIGNAL DESIGN

Distinct observations

Format, delivery, and possession separated. Make the method and any unresolved context visible to the consumer.

What this does not establish

Formatting or numbering-plan validation does not establish reachability, possession of a number, or the legal identity of its user.

Reference: Google libphonenumber FAQ. Reference links explain the underlying distinction; they do not imply a partnership or an enabled source connection.

A CONTRACT YOU CAN DISCUSS

Read the example.
Review the assumptions.

Switch between the fictional request and response. The example records structure separately and leaves real-world verification unperformed.

Proposed route: POST /v1/validate/mobile. This is a design example, not an available network endpoint.

mobile.response.json
{
  "demo": true,
  "request_id": "sample_mobile_001",
  "status": "needs_review",
  "checks": {
    "structure": "pass",
    "reachability": "not_checked",
    "possession": "not_checked"
  },
  "reasons": [
    {
      "code": "example_only",
      "message": "Fictional fixture; no real-world validation performed."
    }
  ],
  "next_action": "review_requirements"
}
LOCAL EXAMPLE · NO NETWORK REQUESTJSON / UTF-8

Mobile number: fictional response example. These predefined signals illustrate a proposed contract, not a check of real data. View service scope.

PLAN THE NEXT STEP

Keep the workflow human.

Ask for correction.

Point to the missing context or affected field. Preserve the person’s intended value until a meaningful change is reviewed.

Make review explicit.

Separate incomplete evidence from negative findings. Assign ownership and provide a real path for resolving uncertainty.

Prepare for unavailability.

A dependency problem needs an operational route. Do not ask users to keep editing information that was never checked.

Explore another data family.

YOUR NEXT INTEGRATION

Make your next check
more meaningful.

Start with the right question. Build toward a clearer answer.