← All domains

DataView domain

APRF-27

Data Governance & Quality

Govern corpora, indexes, labels, and feedback loops—distinct from privacy controls.

Purpose

Own lineage, quality, labeling, retrieval-index governance, and train/serve consistency for data that shapes AI behavior.

Engineering philosophy

Privacy asks who may see data; governance asks whether the data is fit for purpose. Bad corpora and poisoned indexes create silent production failures.

Why it matters

Hallucinations, biased outcomes, and retrieval failures often originate in unmanaged data—not in the model alone.

Common failures

  • RAG indexes with no freshness or ownership
  • Eval and fine-tune sets without label quality review
  • Feedback loops that reinforce errors into memory or training
  • No lineage from production answer to source document version

Mandatory checks

Gate controls. Each check is pass/fail via artifact + pass condition. Expected from the annotated capability level when the system meets the minimum criticality tier.

  • DG-M1L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionhybrid

    Production retrieval corpora and indexes shall have owners, versioning, and refresh cadence

    Artifact
    Corpus/index inventory with owner, version ID, and refresh schedule
    Pass condition
    100% of production indexes have owner + version ID + refresh cadence; 0 indexes missing any field; stale beyond cadence flagged or rebuilt
  • DG-M2L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionhybrid

    Data used for evals or fine-tuning shall have documented provenance and quality criteria

    Artifact
    Dataset cards or registry entries for eval/fine-tune sets
    Pass condition
    100% of datasets used in production gates or fine-tunes have provenance + quality criteria documented; promotion blocked if missing (CI or review checklist evidence)
  • DG-M3L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionhybrid

    Feedback or memory promotion paths that affect future answers shall be governed

    Artifact
    Promotion policy + write-path controls for feedback→memory/training
    Pass condition
    100% of promotion paths require policy check or human approval; tests show ungated promotion to durable memory/training is denied

Evidence required

  • Corpus/index inventory with owners
  • Data quality criteria and sample reviews
  • Lineage examples from answer to source version

Severity & risk

Severity
high
Impact if violated
Risk level
high
Typical residual risk (impact × likelihood)

Engineering best practices

  • Treat indexes as release artifacts with version IDs
  • Separate experimental corpora from production indexes
  • Review user-generated feedback before it becomes training signal

Automatic validations

  • Index build pipelines emit version and checksum
  • Alerts on stale critical corpora
  • CI checks that eval datasets meet schema/quality gates

Manual validations

  • Periodic corpus content audits
  • Label quality sampling

Examples

  • A policy RAG index is rebuilt nightly with a new version ID and canary before cutover
  • Fine-tune data requires dual review before entering the training set

References

Crosswalks

  • MAP Map

    NIST AI Risk Management Framework · supports

  • Fair Fair — Harmful Bias Managed

    NIST AI Risk Management Framework · partial

  • §4 Context of the organization

    ISO/IEC 42001 · aligns-with

  • Annex A AI system controls (selected themes)

    ISO/IEC 42001 · partial

  • LLM04 Data and Model Poisoning

    OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · supports

  • LLM08 Vector and Embedding Weaknesses

    OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · supports

  • P-series Privacy (selected)

    SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria · partial

Future evolution

Portable dataset and index manifests with integrity proofs across vendors.