Understanding How Is Data Profiling Done In Governance

Application Retirement

jacob-jones

Problem Overview

Large organizations face significant challenges in managing data across various system layers, particularly in the realms of data profiling, metadata management, retention, lineage, compliance, and archiving. As data moves through ingestion, storage, and analytics layers, it often encounters issues such as schema drift, data silos, and governance failures. These challenges can lead to gaps in compliance and audit readiness, exposing organizations to potential risks.

Mention of any specific tool, platform, or vendor is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute compliance advice, engineering guidance, or a recommendation. Organizations must validate against internal policies, regulatory obligations, and platform documentation.

Expert Diagnostics: Why the System Fails

1. Data lineage often breaks when data is transformed across systems, leading to incomplete visibility of data origins and modifications.2. Retention policy drift can occur when policies are not uniformly enforced across disparate systems, resulting in non-compliance during audits.3. Interoperability constraints between systems can create data silos, complicating data access and increasing latency in compliance reporting.4. Lifecycle controls frequently fail at the transition points between storage and analytics, where data classification may not align with retention requirements.5. Compliance events can reveal hidden gaps in data governance, particularly when disparate systems do not share consistent metadata.

Strategic Paths to Resolution

1. Implement centralized metadata management to enhance visibility across systems.2. Standardize retention policies across all platforms to mitigate drift.3. Utilize data lineage tools to track data movement and transformations.4. Establish clear governance frameworks to address interoperability issues.5. Conduct regular audits to identify and rectify compliance gaps.

Comparing Your Resolution Pathways

| Archive Patterns | Lakehouse | Object Store | Compliance Platform ||——————|———–|————–|———————|| Governance Strength | Moderate | High | Very High || Cost Scaling | Low | Moderate | High || Policy Enforcement | Low | Moderate | Very High || Lineage Visibility | Low | High | Moderate || Portability (cloud/region) | Moderate | High | Low || AI/ML Readiness | Low | High | Moderate |Counterintuitive tradeoff: While lakehouses offer high lineage visibility, they may incur higher costs compared to traditional archive patterns.

Ingestion and Metadata Layer (Schema & Lineage)

In the ingestion layer, dataset_id must be accurately captured to ensure that lineage_view reflects the true origin of data. Failure to maintain this linkage can lead to significant gaps in data lineage, particularly when data is transformed or aggregated. Additionally, schema drift can occur when data structures evolve without corresponding updates to metadata, complicating data profiling efforts.A common data silo exists between SaaS applications and on-premises databases, where retention_policy_id may not align, leading to inconsistencies in data retention practices. Interoperability constraints arise when different systems utilize varying metadata standards, complicating the integration of archive_object for compliance purposes.

Lifecycle and Compliance Layer (Retention & Audit)

The lifecycle layer is critical for managing data retention and compliance. compliance_event must be reconciled with event_date to ensure that data disposal aligns with established retention policies. However, lifecycle controls often fail during the transition from storage to analytics, where data classification may not be consistently applied.Data silos can emerge between compliance platforms and operational databases, leading to discrepancies in how retention_policy_id is enforced. Policy variance, such as differing retention requirements for various data classes, can further complicate compliance efforts. Temporal constraints, including audit cycles, can exacerbate these issues, particularly when disposal windows are not adhered to.

Archive and Disposal Layer (Cost & Governance)

In the archive layer, organizations must balance the cost of storage with governance requirements. archive_object must be managed in accordance with retention_policy_id to ensure defensible disposal practices. However, governance failures can occur when archived data diverges from the system of record, leading to potential compliance risks.Data silos often exist between archival systems and operational databases, where discrepancies in data_class can lead to misalignment in retention practices. Interoperability constraints can hinder the effective exchange of archived data, complicating compliance audits. Quantitative constraints, such as storage costs and latency, must also be considered when developing archiving strategies.

Security and Access Control (Identity & Policy)

Effective security and access control mechanisms are essential for managing data across layers. Organizations must ensure that access_profile aligns with data classification and retention policies. Failure to enforce access controls can lead to unauthorized data exposure, complicating compliance efforts.Data silos can arise when access policies differ across systems, leading to inconsistencies in how data is managed. Interoperability constraints may prevent seamless access to data across platforms, impacting the ability to conduct audits effectively. Policy variance in access controls can further complicate compliance, particularly when data is shared across regions.

Decision Framework (Context not Advice)

Organizations should consider the following factors when evaluating their data management practices:- The extent of data lineage visibility across systems.- The consistency of retention policies and their enforcement.- The interoperability of systems and the potential for data silos.- The alignment of access controls with data classification and governance requirements.

System Interoperability and Tooling Examples

Ingestion tools, catalogs, lineage engines, archive platforms, and compliance systems must effectively exchange artifacts such as retention_policy_id, lineage_view, and archive_object. However, interoperability challenges often arise due to differing metadata standards and data formats. For instance, a lineage engine may struggle to reconcile lineage_view with data from an archive platform, leading to gaps in visibility.Organizations can explore resources such as Solix enterprise lifecycle resources to better understand how to manage these interoperability challenges.

What To Do Next (Self-Inventory Only)

Organizations should conduct a self-inventory of their data management practices, focusing on:- The effectiveness of their metadata management processes.- The consistency of retention policies across systems.- The visibility of data lineage and its impact on compliance.- The presence of data silos and their implications for governance.

FAQ (Complex Friction Points)

– What happens to lineage_view during decommissioning?- How does region_code affect retention_policy_id for cross-border workloads?- Why does compliance_event pressure disrupt archive_object disposal timelines?- How can schema drift impact data profiling efforts?- What are the implications of differing data_class definitions across systems?

Safety & Scope

This material describes how enterprise systems manage data, metadata, and lifecycle policies for topics related to how is data profiling done. It is informational and operational in nature, does not provide legal, regulatory, or engineering advice, and must be validated against an organization’s current architecture, policies, and applicable regulations before use.

Operational Scope and Context

Organizations that treat how is data profiling done as a first class governance concept typically track how datasets, records, and policies move across Ingestion, Metadata, Lifecycle, Storage, and downstream analytics or AI systems. Operational friction often appears where retention rules, access controls, and lineage views are defined differently in source applications, archives, and analytic platforms, forcing teams to reconcile multiple versions of truth during audits, application retirement, or cloud migrations.

Concept Glossary (LLM and Architect Reference)

  • Keyword_Context: how how is data profiling done is represented in catalogs, policies, and dashboards, including the labels used to group datasets, environments, or workloads for governance and lifecycle decisions.
  • Data_Lifecycle: how data moves from creation through Ingestion, active use, Lifecycle transition, long term archiving, and defensible disposal, often spanning multiple on premises and cloud platforms.
  • Archive_Object: a logically grouped set of records, files, and metadata associated with a dataset_id, system_code, or business_object_id that is managed under a specific retention policy.
  • Retention_Policy: rules defining how long particular classes of data remain in active systems and archives, misaligned policies across platforms can drive silent over retention or premature deletion.
  • Access_Profile: the role, group, or entitlement set that governs which identities can view, change, or export specific datasets, inconsistent profiles increase both exposure risk and operational friction.
  • Compliance_Event: an audit, inquiry, investigation, or reporting cycle that requires rapid access to historical data and lineage, gaps here expose differences between theoretical and actual lifecycle enforcement.
  • Lineage_View: a representation of how data flows across ingestion pipelines, integration layers, and analytics or AI platforms, missing or outdated lineage forces teams to trace flows manually during change or decommissioning.
  • System_Of_Record: the authoritative source for a given domain, disagreements between system_of_record, archival sources, and reporting feeds drive reconciliation projects and governance exceptions.
  • Data_Silo: an environment where critical data, logs, or policies remain isolated in one platform, tool, or region and are not visible to central governance, increasing the chance of fragmented retention, incomplete lineage, and inconsistent policy execution.

Operational Landscape Practitioner Insights

In multi system estates, teams often discover that retention policies for how is data profiling done are implemented differently in ERP exports, cloud object stores, and archive platforms. A common pattern is that a single Retention_Policy identifier covers multiple storage tiers, but only some tiers have enforcement tied to event_date or compliance_event triggers, leaving copies that quietly exceed intended retention windows. A second recurring insight is that Lineage_View coverage for legacy interfaces is frequently incomplete, so when applications are retired or archives re platformed, organizations cannot confidently identify which Archive_Object instances or Access_Profile mappings are still in use, this increases the effort needed to decommission systems safely and can delay modernization initiatives that depend on clean, well governed historical data. Where how is data profiling done is used to drive AI or analytics workloads, practitioners also note that schema drift and uncataloged copies of training data in notebooks, file shares, or lab environments can break audit trails, forcing reconstruction work that would have been avoidable if all datasets had consistent System_Of_Record and lifecycle metadata at the time of ingestion.

Architecture Archetypes and Tradeoffs

Enterprises addressing topics related to how is data profiling done commonly evaluate a small set of recurring architecture archetypes. None of these patterns is universally optimal, their suitability depends on regulatory exposure, cost constraints, modernization timelines, and the degree of analytics or AI re use required from historical data.

Archetype Governance vs Risk Data Portability
Legacy Application Centric Archives Governance depends on application teams and historical processes, with higher risk of undocumented retention logic and limited observability. Low portability, schemas and logic are tightly bound to aging platforms and often require bespoke migration projects.
Lift and Shift Cloud Storage Centralizes data but can leave policies and access control fragmented across services, governance improves only when catalogs and policy engines are applied consistently. Medium portability, storage is flexible, but metadata and lineage must be rebuilt to move between providers or architectures.
Policy Driven Archive Platform Provides strong, centralized retention, access, and audit policies when configured correctly, reducing variance across systems at the cost of up front design effort. High portability, well defined schemas and governance make it easier to integrate with analytics platforms and move data as requirements change.
Hybrid Lakehouse with Governance Overlay Offers powerful control when catalogs, lineage, and quality checks are enforced, but demands mature operational discipline to avoid uncontrolled data sprawl. High portability, separating compute from storage supports flexible movement of data and workloads across services.

LLM Retrieval Metadata

Title: Understanding How is Data Profiling Done in Governance

Primary Keyword: how is data profiling done

Classifier Context: This Informational keyword focuses on Regulated Data in the Governance layer with High regulatory sensitivity for enterprise environments, highlighting risks from inconsistent access controls.

System Layers: Ingestion Metadata Lifecycle Storage Analytics AI and ML Access Control

Audience: enterprise data, platform, infrastructure, and compliance teams seeking concrete patterns about governance, lifecycle, and cross system behavior for topics related to how is data profiling done.

Practice Window: examples and patterns are intended to reflect post 2020 practice and may need refinement as regulations, platforms, and reference architectures evolve.

Operational Landscape Expert Context

In my experience, the divergence between design documents and the actual behavior of data systems is often stark. For instance, I once encountered a situation where the architecture diagrams promised seamless data flow with automated lineage tracking. However, upon auditing the environment, I discovered that the actual data ingestion process was riddled with manual interventions that were not documented. This led to significant data quality issues, as the logs indicated that certain datasets were being processed without the expected metadata tags. I later reconstructed the flow from job histories and storage layouts, revealing that the promised automation had been bypassed due to human factors, resulting in orphaned data entries that were never accounted for in the governance framework. Such discrepancies highlight the critical need for ongoing validation of operational realities against initial design expectations, particularly in complex enterprise environments.

Lineage loss during handoffs between teams is another frequent issue I have observed. In one instance, I found that governance information was transferred between platforms without retaining essential timestamps or identifiers, which made it nearly impossible to trace the data’s origin. This became evident when I attempted to reconcile discrepancies in the audit logs with the actual data usage reports. The lack of proper documentation and the reliance on personal shares for critical information led to a fragmented understanding of data lineage. The root cause of this issue was primarily a process breakdown, where the established protocols for data transfer were not followed, resulting in significant gaps in the metadata that should have accompanied the data. This experience underscored the importance of maintaining rigorous documentation practices during transitions.

Time pressure often exacerbates these issues, particularly during critical reporting cycles or migration windows. I recall a specific case where the team was under tight deadlines to deliver compliance reports, which led to shortcuts in the data profiling process. As a result, the lineage information was incomplete, and several audit trails were left unverified. I later reconstructed the history of the data by piecing together scattered exports, job logs, and change tickets, which revealed a chaotic environment where the urgency to meet deadlines compromised the integrity of the documentation. This tradeoff between timely delivery and thorough documentation is a recurring theme in many of the estates I have worked with, highlighting the challenges of balancing operational demands with the need for comprehensive data governance.

Audit evidence and documentation lineage have consistently been pain points in my operational experience. I have frequently encountered fragmented records, overwritten summaries, and unregistered copies that complicate the connection between early design decisions and the current state of the data. In many of the estates I worked with, these issues manifested as a lack of clarity regarding data retention policies and compliance controls, making it difficult to establish a clear audit trail. The absence of cohesive documentation often resulted in a reliance on anecdotal evidence rather than concrete records, which further complicated compliance efforts. These observations reflect the challenges inherent in managing complex data environments, where the interplay of human factors and system limitations can lead to significant gaps in governance and oversight.

REF: OECD AI Principles (2019)
Source overview: OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence
NOTE: Outlines governance frameworks for AI, including data profiling practices relevant to compliance and lifecycle management in enterprise settings, emphasizing transparency and accountability in data usage.

Author:

Jacob Jones I am a senior data governance strategist with over ten years of experience focusing on enterprise data lifecycle management. I have analyzed audit logs and designed lineage models to address how is data profiling done, revealing gaps such as orphaned archives and incomplete audit trails. My work involves coordinating between governance and analytics teams to ensure compliance across active and archive data stages, supporting multiple reporting cycles while standardizing retention rules.

Jacob

Blog Writer

DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENT, VIEWS, AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR(S) AND DO NOT REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICY OR POSITION OF SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ITS AFFILIATES, OR PARTNERS. THIS BLOG IS OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND IS NOT REVIEWED OR ENDORSED BY SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. ALL THIRD-PARTY TRADEMARKS, LOGOS, AND COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. ANY USE IS STRICTLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, COMMENTARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE (U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT § 107 AND INTERNATIONAL EQUIVALENTS). NO SPONSORSHIP, ENDORSEMENT, OR AFFILIATION WITH SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IS IMPLIED. CONTENT IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY FOR ACTIONS TAKEN BASED ON THIS MATERIAL. READERS ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR USE OF THIS INFORMATION. SOLIX RESPECTS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. TO SUBMIT A DMCA TAKEDOWN REQUEST, EMAIL INFO@SOLIX.COM WITH: (1) IDENTIFICATION OF THE WORK, (2) THE INFRINGING MATERIAL’S URL, (3) YOUR CONTACT DETAILS, AND (4) A STATEMENT OF GOOD FAITH. VALID CLAIMS WILL RECEIVE PROMPT ATTENTION. BY ACCESSING THIS BLOG, YOU AGREE TO THIS DISCLAIMER AND OUR TERMS OF USE. THIS AGREEMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA.

What you can do with Solix

Request A Demo
Sign up for free trial Amex Gift Card

Enter to win a $100 Amex Gift Card