I’ve noticed an inconsistency between the custom field names used in automations and those defined in the “Business Profile,” which creates confusion during workflow setup. For example, within a workflow, selecting Account → Address Line 1 inserts the value {{location.address}}. However, this value corresponds to a field labeled “Street Address” in the Business Profile. This mismatch in naming conventions applies across multiple fields. Additionally, it is unclear why selecting Account fields results in values prefixed with {{location...}}. The term “location” appears to refer to the Business Profile, but this relationship is not explicitly explained. This adds another layer of confusion, as users must mentally map “Account” fields in automations to “location” variables and then to differently named fields in the Business Profile. Because of these inconsistencies, it becomes difficult to understand what data is actually being referenced when building workflows. This often leads to unnecessary trial and error to verify outputs, which slows down the process and makes it harder to confidently select the correct fields from the start. Improving naming consistency across the platform—or clearly documenting and aligning how “Account,” “location,” and Business Profile fields relate to each other—would significantly improve usability and reduce the need for repeated testing.