Tag Archives: Regulated Data Platforms

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

Leave a Reply

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 →

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

Leave a Reply

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

Leave a Reply

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 →

Golden-Source Resolution, Multi-Source Precedence, and Regulatory Point-in-Time Reporting on SCD2 Bronze

Leave a Reply

Why Deterministic Precedence Is the Line Between “Data Platform” and “Regulatory Liability”. Modern UK Financial Services organisations ingest customer, account, and product data from 5–20 different systems of record, each holding overlapping and often conflicting truth. Delivering a reliable “Customer 360” or “Account 360” requires deterministic, audit-defensible precedence rules, survivorship logic, temporal correction workflows, and regulatory point-in-time (PIT) reconstructions: all operating on an SCD2 Bronze layer. This article explains how mature banks resolve multi-source conflicts, maintain lineage, rebalance history when higher-precedence data arrives late, and produce FCA/PRA-ready temporal truth. It describes the real patterns used in Tier-1 institutions, and the architectural techniques required to make them deterministic, scalable, and regulator-defensible.

Continue reading →