Tag Archives: Data Governance

From Writes to Reads: Applying CQRS Thinking to Regulated Data Platforms

In regulated financial environments, data duplication is often treated as a failure rather than a necessity. Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS) is an approach to separate concerns such as reads versus writes. This article reframes duplication through CQRS-style thinking, arguing that separating write models (which execute actions) from read models (which explain outcomes) is essential for both safe operation and regulatory defensibility. By making authority explicit and accepting eventual consistency, institutions can act in real time while reconstructing explainable, auditable belief over time. CQRS is presented not as a framework, but as a mental model for survivable data platforms.

Continue reading →

Edge Systems Are a Feature: Why OLTP, CRM, and Low-Latency Stores Must Exist

Modern data platforms often treat operational systems as legacy constraints to be eliminated. This article argues the opposite. Transactional systems, CRM platforms, and low-latency decision stores exist because some decisions must be made synchronously, locally, and with authority. These “edge systems” are not architectural debt but purpose-built domains of control. A mature data platform does not replace them or centralise authority falsely; it integrates with them honestly, preserving their decisions, context, and evolution over time.

Continue reading →

Authority, Truth, and Belief in Financial Services Data Platforms

Financial services data architectures often fail by asking the wrong question: “Which system is the system of record?” This article argues that regulated firms operate with multiple systems of authority, while truth exists outside systems altogether. What data platforms actually manage is institutional belief: what the firm believed at a given time, based on available evidence. By separating authority, truth, and belief, firms can build architectures that preserve history, explain disagreement, and withstand regulatory scrutiny through accountable, reconstructable decision-making.

Continue reading →

Eventual Consistency in Regulated Financial Services Data Platforms

In regulated financial services, eventual consistency is often treated as a technical weakness to be minimised or hidden. This article argues the opposite: eventual consistency is the only honest and defensible consistency model in a multi-system, regulator-supervised institution. Regulators do not require instantaneous agreement: they require explainability, reconstructability, and reasonableness at the time decisions were made. By treating eventual consistency as an explicit architectural and regulatory contract, firms can bound inconsistency, preserve historical belief, and strengthen audit defensibility rather than undermine it.

Continue reading →

Why UK Financial Services Data Platforms Must Preserve Temporal Truth for Regulatory Compliance

A Regulatory Perspective (2025–2026). UK Financial Services regulation in 2025–2026 increasingly requires firms to demonstrate not just what is true today, but what was known at the time decisions were made. Across Consumer Duty, s166 reviews, AML/KYC, model risk, and operational resilience, regulators expect deterministic reconstruction of historical belief, supported by traceable evidence. This article explains where that requirement comes from, why traditional current-state platforms fail under scrutiny, and why preserving temporal truth inevitably drives architectures that capture change over time as a foundational control, not a technical preference.

Continue reading →

Common Anti-Patterns in Financial Services Data Platforms

Financial Services data platforms rarely fail because of tools, scale, or performance. They fail because architectural decisions are left implicit, applied inconsistently, or overridden under pressure. This article documents the most common and damaging failure modes observed in large-scale FS data platforms: not as edge cases, but as predictable outcomes of well-intentioned instincts applied at the wrong layer. Each pattern shows how trust erodes quietly over time, often remaining invisible until audit, remediation, or regulatory scrutiny exposes the underlying architectural fault lines.

Continue reading →

Operationalising Time, Consistency, and Freshness in a Financial Services Data Platform

This article translates the temporal doctrine established in Time, Consistency, and Freshness in a Financial Services Data Platform into enforceable architectural mechanisms. It focuses not on tools or technologies, but on the structural controls required to make time, consistency, and freshness unavoidable properties of a Financial Services (FS) data platform. The objective is simple: ensure that temporal correctness does not depend on developer discipline, operational goodwill, or institutional memory, but is instead enforced mechanically by the platform itself.

Continue reading →

Databricks vs Snowflake vs Fabric vs Other Tech with SCD2 Bronze: Choosing the Right Operating Model

Choosing the right platform for implementing SCD2 in the Bronze layer is not a tooling decision but an operating model decision. At scale, SCD2 Bronze forces trade-offs around change capture, merge frequency, physical layout, cost governance, and long-term analytics readiness. Different platforms optimise for different assumptions about who owns those trade-offs. This article compares Databricks, Snowflake, Microsoft Fabric, and alternative technologies through that lens, with practical guidance for Financial Services organisations designing SCD2 Bronze layers that must remain scalable, auditable, and cost-effective over time.

Continue reading →

From Partitioning to Liquid Clustering: Evolving SCD2 Bronze on Databricks at Scale

As SCD2 Bronze layers mature, even well-designed partitioning and ZORDER strategies can struggle under extreme scale, high-cardinality business keys, and evolving access patterns. This article examines why SCD2 Bronze datasets place unique pressure on static data layouts and introduces Databricks Liquid Clustering as a natural next step in their operational evolution. It explains when Liquid Clustering becomes appropriate, how it fits within regulated Financial Services environments, and how it preserves auditability while improving long-term performance and readiness for analytics and AI workloads.

Continue reading →

From Graph Insight to Action: Decisions, Controls & Remediation in Financial Services Platforms

This article argues that financial services platforms fail not from lack of insight, but from weak architecture between detection and action. Graph analytics and models generate signals, not decisions. Collapsing the two undermines accountability, auditability, and regulatory defensibility. By separating signals, judgements, and decisions; treating decisions as time-qualified data; governing controls as executable policy; and enabling deterministic replay for remediation, platforms can move from reactive analytics to explainable, defensible action. In regulated environments, what matters is not what was known: but what was decided, when, and why.

Continue reading →

Networks, Relationships & Financial Crime Graphs on the Bronze Layer

Financial crime rarely appears in isolated records; it emerges through networks of entities, relationships, and behaviours over time. This article explains why financial crime graphs must be treated as foundational, temporal structures anchored near the Bronze layer of a regulated data platform. It explores how relationships are inferred, versioned, and governed, why “known then” versus “known now” matters, and how poorly designed graphs undermine regulatory defensibility. Done correctly, crime graphs provide explainable, rebuildable network intelligence that stands up to scrutiny years later.

Continue reading →

Probabilistic & Graph-Based Identity in Regulated Financial Services

This article argues that probabilistic and graph-based identity techniques are unavoidable in regulated Financial Services, but only defensible when tightly governed. Deterministic entity resolution remains the foundation, providing anchors, constraints, and auditability. Probabilistic scores and identity graphs introduce likelihood and network reasoning, not truth, and must be time-bound, versioned, and replayable. When anchored to immutable history, SCD2 discipline, and clear guardrails, these techniques enhance fraud and AML insight; without discipline, they create significant regulatory risk.

Continue reading →

WTF is the Fellegi–Sunter Model? A Practical Guide to Record Matching in an Uncertain World

The Fellegi–Sunter model is the foundational probabilistic framework for record linkage… deciding whether two imperfect records refer to the same real-world entity. Rather than enforcing brittle matching rules, it treats linkage as a problem of weighing evidence under uncertainty. By modelling how fields behave for true matches versus non-matches, it produces interpretable scores and explicit decision thresholds. Despite decades of new tooling and machine learning, most modern matching systems still rest on this logic… often without acknowledging it.

Continue reading →

Aligning the Data Platform to Enterprise Data & AI Strategy

This article establishes the data platform as the execution engine of Enterprise Data & AI Strategy in Financial Services. It bridges executive strategy and technical delivery by showing how layered architecture (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum), embedded governance, dual promotion lifecycles (North/South and East/West), and domain-aligned operating models turn strategic pillars, architecture & quality, governance, security & privacy, process & tools, and people & culture, into repeatable, regulator-ready outcomes. The result is a platform that delivers control, velocity, semantic alignment, and safe AI enablement at scale.

Continue reading →

Migrating Legacy EDW Slowly-Changing Dimensions to Lakehouse Bronze

From 20-year-old warehouse SCDs to a modern temporal backbone you can trust. This article lays out a practical, regulator-aware playbook for migrating legacy EDW SCD dimensions to a modern SCD2 Bronze layer in a medallion/lakehouse architecture. It covers what you are really migrating (semantics, not just tables), how to treat the EDW as a source system, how to build canonical SCD2 Bronze, how to run both platforms in parallel, and how to prove to auditors and regulators that nothing has been lost or corrupted in the process.

Continue reading →

Enterprise Point-in-Time (PIT) Reconstruction: The Regulatory Playbook

This article sets out the definitive regulatory playbook for enterprise Point-in-Time (PIT) reconstruction in UK Financial Services. It explains why PIT is now a supervisory expectation: driven by PRA/FCA reviews, Consumer Duty, s166 investigations, AML/KYC forensics, and model risk, and makes a clear distinction between “state as known” and “state as now known”. Covering SCD2 foundations, entity resolution, precedence versioning, multi-domain alignment, temporal repair, and reproducible rebuild patterns, it shows how to construct a deterministic, explainable PIT engine that can withstand audit, replay history reliably, and defend regulatory outcomes with confidence.

Continue reading →

Building Regulator-Defensible Enterprise RAG Systems (FCA/PRA/SMCR)

This article defines what regulator-defensible enterprise Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) looks like in Financial Services (at least in 2025–2026). Rather than focusing on model quality, it frames RAG through the questions regulators actually ask: what information was used, can the answer be reproduced, who is accountable, and how risk is controlled. It sets out minimum standards for context provenance, audit-grade logging, temporal and precedence-aware retrieval, human-in-the-loop escalation, and replayability. The result is a clear distinction between RAG prototypes and enterprise systems that can survive PRA/FCA and SMCR scrutiny.

Continue reading →

AI Agents for Temporal Repair, Metadata Enrichment, and Regulatory Automation

This article explains where AI agents genuinely add value in regulated Financial Services data platforms — and where they become indefensible. It distinguishes “useful” agents from regulator-defensible ones, showing how agents can safely detect temporal defects, propose repairs, enrich metadata, and draft regulatory artefacts without bypassing governance. Using practical patterns and real failure modes, it defines a strict operating model — detect, propose, approve, apply — that preserves auditability, replayability, and SMCR accountability while delivering operational leverage that survives PRA/FCA scrutiny.

Continue reading →

Integrating AI and LLMs into Regulated Financial Services Data Platforms

How AI fits into Bronze/Silver/Gold without breaking lineage, PIT, or SMCR: This article sets out a regulator-defensible approach to integrating AI and LLMs into UK Financial Services data platforms (structurally accurate for 2025/2026). It argues that AI must operate as a governed consumer and orchestrator of a temporal medallion architecture, not a parallel system. By defining four permitted integration patterns, PIT-aware RAG, controlled Bronze embeddings, anonymised fine-tuning, and agentic orchestration, it shows how to preserve lineage, point-in-time truth, and SMCR accountability while enabling practical AI use under PRA/FCA scrutiny.

Continue reading →

Foundational Architecture Decisions in a Financial Services Data Platform

This article defines a comprehensive architectural doctrine for modern Financial Services data platforms, separating precursor decisions (what must be true for trust and scale) from foundational decisions (how the platform behaves under regulation, time, and organisational pressure). It explains why ingestion maximalism, streaming-first eventual consistency, transactional processing at the edge, domain-first design, and freshness as a business contract are non-negotiable in FS. Through detailed narrative and explicit anti-patterns, it shows how these decisions preserve optionality, enable regulatory defensibility, support diverse communities, and prevent the systemic failure modes that quietly undermine large-scale financial data platforms.

Continue reading →