I don’t think it’s a case of one being more recent than the other. There is more information in the API (through elements like has_charges, has_insolvency_history and the getInsolvency call) that when added to the Receivership status equates to the same thing.
I think in the URI service they have basically constructed a more detailed statement regarding the company’s status using this information for us, whereas through the API we get access to the more basic “raw” data and can use that how we want.
There are a few places where this happens. Through the URI (or XML Gateway) there some elements that they interperate for us… while one of the goals of the API seems to be giving us access to lower level data and allowing (or forcing depending on your point of view) to interperate ourselves.
Thanks for the hints!
My guess was that there was a hierarchy of statuses, and in the API they were returning the upper level of the hierarchy. But your explanation sounds better, the URI service status seems “more detailed” rather than “a child” status of “Receivership”.