Tag Archives: financial services

Unable To Load Conversation: Why ChatGPT Is Not Infrastructure

A case study in how “AI support” fails the moment it actually matters. This article documents the loss of a critical ChatGPT workspace conversation through backend failure, followed by a support process that denied reality, looped incompetently, and ultimately could not accept its own diagnostic evidence. It exposes systemic fragility, misplaced corporate faith in “Copilot”, and why treating LLMs as reliable infrastructure, especially in regulated environments, is reckless.

Continue reading →

Collapsing the Medallion: Layers as Patterns, Not Physical Boundaries

The medallion model was never meant to be a physical storage mandate. It is a pattern language for expressing guarantees about evidence, interpretation, and trust. In mature, regulated platforms, those guarantees increasingly live in contracts, lineage, governance, and tests: not in rigid physical layers. Collapsing the medallion does not weaken regulatory substantiation; it strengthens it by decoupling invariants from layout. This article explains why layers were necessary, why they eventually collapse, and what must never be lost when they do.

Continue reading →

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 →

Why Transactions Are Events, Not Slowly Changing Dimensions

This article argues that modelling transactions as slowly changing dimensions is a fundamental category error in financial data platforms. Transactions are immutable events that occur once and do not change; what evolves is the organisation’s interpretation of them through enrichment, classification, and belief updates. Applying SCD2 logic to transactions conflates fact with interpretation, corrupts history, and undermines regulatory defensibility. By separating immutable event records from mutable interpretations, platforms become clearer, auditable, and capable of reconstructing past decisions without rewriting reality.

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 →

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 →

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 →

Temporal RAG: Retrieving “State as Known on Date X” for LLMs in Financial Services

This article explains why standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) silently corrupts history in Financial Services by answering past questions with present-day truth. It introduces Temporal RAG: a regulator-defensible retrieval pattern that conditions every query on an explicit as_of timestamp and retrieves only from Point-in-Time (PIT) slices governed by SCD2 validity, precedence rules, and repair policies. Using concrete implementation patterns and audit reconstruction examples, it shows how to make LLM retrieval reproducible, evidential, and safe for complaints, remediation, AML, and conduct-risk use cases.

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 →

Measuring Value in a Modern FS Data Platform: Framework for Understanding, Quantifying, and Communicating Data Value in FS

Measuring Value in a Modern FS Data Platform reframes how Financial Services organisations should evaluate data platforms. Rather than measuring pipelines, volumes, or dashboards, true value emerges from consumption, velocity, optionality, semantic alignment, and control. By landing raw data, accelerating delivery through reuse, organising around business domains, and unifying meaning in a layered Bronze–Silver–Gold–Platinum architecture, modern platforms enable faster decisions, richer analytics, regulatory confidence, and long-term adaptability. This article provides a practical, consumption-driven framework for CDOs and CIOs to quantify and communicate real data value.

Continue reading →

East/West vs North/South Promotion Lifecycles: How Modern Financial Services Data Platforms Support Operational Stability and Analytical Freedom Simultaneously

This article argues that modern Financial Services (FS) data platforms must deliberately support two distinct but complementary promotion lifecycles. The well known and understood North/South lifecycle provides operational stability, governance, and regulatory safety for customer-facing and auditor-visible systems. In parallel, the East/West lifecycle enables analytical exploration, experimentation, and rapid innovation for data science and analytics teams. By mapping these lifecycles onto layered data architectures (Bronze to Platinum) and introducing clear promotion gates, FS organisations can protect operational integrity while sustaining analytical freedom and innovation.

Continue reading →

Consumers of a Financial Services Data Platform: Who They Are, What They Need, and How Modern Architecture Must Support Them

This article examines who consumes a modern Financial Services data platform and why their differing needs must shape its architecture. It identifies four core consumer groups, operational systems, analytics communities, finance and reconciliation functions, and governance and regulators, alongside additional emerging consumers. By analysing how each group interacts with data, the article explains why layered architectures, dual promotion flows, and semantic alignment are essential. Ultimately, it argues that platform value is defined by consumption, not ingestion or technology choices.

Continue reading →

Gold & Platinum Layer Architecture After Silver

Modern Financial Services data platforms require more than Bronze, Silver, and Gold layers to manage complexity, meaning, and governance. While Silver provides current-state truth and Gold delivers consumption-driven business meaning, neither resolves enterprise-wide semantics. This article introduces the Platinum layer as the conceptual truth layer, reconciling how different domains, systems, and analytical communities understand the same data. Together, Gold and Platinum bridge operational use, analytical insight, and long-lived domain semantics, enabling clarity, velocity, and governed understanding at scale.

Continue reading →

Handling Embedded XML/JSON Blobs to Audit-Grade SCD2 Bronze

Financial Services platforms routinely ingest XML and JSON embedded in opaque fields, creating tension between audit fidelity and analytical usability. This article presents a regulator-defensible approach to handling such payloads in the Bronze layer: landing raw data immutably, extracting only high-value attributes, applying attribute-level SCD2, and managing schema drift without data loss. Using hybrid flattening, temporal compaction, and disciplined lineage, banks can transform messy blobs into audit-grade Bronze assets while preserving point-in-time reconstruction and regulatory confidence.

Continue reading →

From SCD2 Bronze to a Non-SCD Silver Layer in Other Tech (Iceberg, Hudi, BigQuery, Fabric)

Modern data platforms consistently separate historical truth from analytical usability by storing full SCD2 history in a Bronze layer and exposing a simplified, current-state Silver layer. Whether using Apache Iceberg, Apache Hudi, Google BigQuery, or Microsoft Fabric, the same pattern applies: Bronze preserves immutable, auditable change history, while Silver removes temporal complexity to deliver one row per business entity. Each platform implements this differently, via snapshots, incremental queries, QUALIFY, or Delta MERGE, but the architectural principle remains universal and essential for regulated environments.

Continue reading →