11 hours trying to solve the Address Locator results mismatch with Additional Field

[raffia]

Hi all;

I am building a composite geocoder that takes several address locators. They have all been tested and working great except for the Landmarks feature class. There is always a mismatch between the matching address (match_addr) and the Additional field (user_fld). I am using a customized Address Locator Style that is a spin off the standard "General - Single Field". I have used this customized style for all other locators and it works fine. I have made tried to get around this every which way, changing the key fields, exporting another sequential number instead of the object id, changed the additional filed, may another copy of the feature class...etc. 

Eventually I figured out a pattern in the mismatch, It gets the keyfield right, then goes back 5 object ids ahead and then gets the user_fld (additional field). So 1870 has the user_fld of 1865, 1869 of 1864...etc. I have tried using the landmark_ID for the feature ID, and also tried not using a feature id at all, there is always a mismatch.

I have been struggling with this for 11 hours now , any help is appreciated.

[raffia]

I kept playing with this over the weekend. There are roughly five fields that produce the mismatch when either is used as the additional field. I tried copying the fields to a new one, duplication the DB, still nothing

[ShanaBritt]

Raffi-

Does the behavior occur when using the out of the box General -  Single Field locator style to create the address locator? What modifications were made to the style you used to create the locator that is exhibiting the unexpected behavior?

-Shana