Kindly fill up the following to try out our sandbox experience. We will get back to you at the earliest.
The 9 capabilities GDPR and HIPAA each require of a data platform, cited to the article and CFR section that sets them, plus what no vendor can do for you.
Updated on
GDPR requires your tooling to prove that you know what personal data you hold, why you hold it, who can reach it, where it has flowed and when it will be deleted. HIPAA requires your tooling to prove that access to protected health information is limited to what each role needs, that every touch of it is recorded and reviewed, and that the documentation of all of this has been kept.
Read those two sentences next to each other and the shape of the work becomes obvious. GDPR is written around the individual and their rights over their own data, so it pushes you toward knowing every copy and being able to act on it. HIPAA is written around the custodian and their duty of care, so it pushes you toward limiting access and proving what happened. The engineering that satisfies one covers most of the other.
Read the table first. The nine sections after it explain what each capability has to do in practice and what an auditor will ask you to produce for it.
| Capability | What GDPR requires, and where | What HIPAA requires, and where | Evidence an auditor accepts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Inventory of regulated data | Article 30(1) record of processing activities, naming the categories of data subjects and of personal data, the recipients, and the time limits for erasure. Article 30(4) makes it available to the supervisory authority on request. | 164.514(d)(2)(i)(B) requires you to identify, for each person or class of person, the category or categories of protected health information to which access is needed. | A current export of every asset with its owner, its data categories and its retention period, dated. |
| 2. Column level classification | Article 9(1) prohibits processing data concerning health unless an Article 9(2) condition applies, so you have to know which columns are health data. | 164.514(b)(2) lists the eighteen identifier types that must be removed before information counts as de-identified under the safe harbor method. | The classification policy list, the rules that apply it, and the set of columns each policy currently covers. |
| 3. Recorded purpose and lawful basis | Article 5(1)(b) purpose limitation and Article 6(1), which requires at least one of six lawful bases. Article 30(1)(b) puts the purposes in the record. | 164.502(a) permits use and disclosure only for a listed purpose, and 164.502(b) limits it to the minimum necessary for that purpose. | The purpose recorded as a field on the asset itself, not in a separate spreadsheet nobody updates. |
| 4. Access bound to role and category | Article 25(2) says that by default only the personal data necessary for each purpose are processed, and that the obligation covers their accessibility. | 164.312(a)(1) access control, with unique user identification required at 164.312(a)(2)(i), and 164.308(a)(4) information access management. | The grant list per classification policy, plus who approved each grant and when. |
| 5. A log of who read what | Article 5(2) accountability: the controller must be able to demonstrate compliance. Article 24(1) repeats the duty. | 164.312(b) audit controls, and 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) information system activity review, which is a required specification, not an addressable one. | Access logs at asset level, plus proof that somebody actually reviews them on a schedule. |
| 6. Column level lineage | Article 15(1)(c) entitles the individual to the recipients or categories of recipient. Article 19 requires you to pass an erasure or a rectification on to each of them. | 164.528(a)(1) gives an individual the right to an accounting of disclosures made in the six years before the request, subject to the exceptions listed there. | A lineage graph you can query by column, showing every downstream copy and consumer. |
| 7. Retention and erasure you can execute | Article 17(1) right to erasure, Article 5(1)(e) storage limitation, and Article 12(3), which gives you one month to respond, extendable by two further months. | The opposite instinct. No right to erasure, and 164.316(b)(2)(i) requires documentation to be retained for six years from creation or from when it last was in effect. | A retention rule attached to the classification, and a record of what was deleted, when, and everywhere it existed. |
| 8. Breach scoping | Article 33(1) gives 72 hours to notify the supervisory authority, and Article 33(3)(a) wants the categories and approximate number of data subjects and records concerned. | 164.404(b) requires notification to individuals without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 calendar days after discovery. | A query that answers which records, which categories and how many, in hours rather than weeks. |
| 9. Documentation that outlives its author | Article 24(2) implementation of data protection policies, and Article 30(3), which requires the record to be in writing, including electronic form. | 164.316(a) and (b)(1) require written policies and procedures, retained under 164.316(b)(2)(i) and reviewed and updated under (b)(2)(iii). | Versioned policy documents attached to the assets they govern, with an approval history. |
Article 30 of GDPR is the provision that most directly describes a data catalog, even though it never uses the word. It requires a record of processing activities containing the purposes of the processing, a description of the categories of data subjects and of the categories of personal data, the categories of recipients, the envisaged time limits for erasure of the different categories of data, and a general description of the security measures. Article 30(4) requires you to make that record available to the supervisory authority on request.
HIPAA arrives at the same place from the access side. 45 CFR 164.514(d)(2)(i) requires a covered entity to identify the persons or classes of persons in its workforce who need access to protected health information, and, for each of them, the category or categories of protected health information to which access is needed. You cannot write that down for a system you have not inventoried.
The tooling test is simple. Can it discover every source, including the ones with no tidy connector, and can it keep the inventory current without somebody remembering to update it. An inventory that is a document rather than a live index is out of date the week after it is signed off.
Article 9(1) prohibits the processing of data concerning health, along with genetic and biometric data, unless one of the conditions in Article 9(2) applies. That prohibition is unenforceable inside your own estate unless you know which columns hold that data. Classification is not a labeling exercise for its own sake; it is the thing that makes every other control addressable.
HIPAA is unusually concrete here. The safe harbor method at 45 CFR 164.514(b)(2) lists eighteen identifier types that must be removed before information stops being individually identifiable, and the list is worth reading in full because it is longer than most people assume. It includes names, all geographic subdivisions smaller than a state, all elements of dates except the year, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, medical record numbers, health plan beneficiary numbers, account numbers, certificate and license numbers, vehicle and device identifiers, web addresses, IP addresses, biometric identifiers, full face photographic images, and any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code.
That list is a classification specification you can implement directly. A tool that can hold a policy per identifier type, apply it by pattern or keyword as new columns arrive, and show you every column currently under each policy, is doing the work that 164.514(b) assumes you have done.
Classification is also where governance stops being a document and starts being enforceable, which is the connection between this section and the broader data governance program it sits inside.
Article 5(1)(b) requires personal data to be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner incompatible with them. Article 6(1) then requires at least one of six lawful bases for the processing to be lawful at all: consent, performance of a contract, a legal obligation, vital interests, a task in the public interest, or legitimate interests. Consent is one of six, and for a hospital or an insurer it is frequently not the one that applies.
HIPAA does not use the language of lawful basis. It works the other way round: 164.502(a) sets out the uses and disclosures a covered entity is permitted or required to make, and anything outside that set needs an authorization under 164.508. Treatment, payment and health care operations sit inside the permitted set and do not need one.
For tooling, both regimes reduce to the same requirement: the purpose has to be a field on the asset, visible to whoever queries it, and it has to be reviewed when the asset is reused for something new. A purpose recorded once in a project document at procurement time and never seen again is not a control.
Article 25(2) is the sharpest sentence in GDPR on this point. It requires the controller to ensure that, by default, only personal data which are necessary for each specific purpose are processed, and it says explicitly that the obligation applies to the amount collected, the extent of processing, the period of storage and their accessibility.
HIPAA states the same idea as a standard with named implementation specifications. 164.312(a)(1) requires technical policies and procedures that allow access only to those persons or software programs granted access rights under 164.308(a)(4). Unique user identification at 164.312(a)(2)(i) and an emergency access procedure at (a)(2)(ii) are marked Required. Automatic logoff and encryption at (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) are marked Addressable, which is not the same as optional: 164.306(d)(3) requires you to assess each addressable specification and, if you do not implement it, to document why it would not be reasonable and appropriate and to implement an equivalent alternative measure if one is.
The engineering consequence is that grants have to be expressed against classifications rather than against object names. A rule that says this role may not read any column classified as PHI keeps working when a new table lands. A list of table names does not.
HIPAA states what that identification has to produce:
A covered entity must identify: (A) Those persons or classes of persons, as appropriate, in its workforce who need access to protected health information to carry out their duties; and (B) For each such person or class of persons, the category or categories of protected health information to which access is needed and any conditions appropriate to such access. (45 CFR 164.514(d)(2)(i))
This is the requirement most often half implemented. HIPAA sets it twice. 164.312(b) is the audit controls standard, and 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) requires procedures to regularly review records of information system activity such as audit logs, access reports and security incident tracking reports. That second one is marked Required, so the review itself is the obligation, not just the existence of the log.
Standard: Audit controls. Implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use electronic protected health information. (45 CFR 164.312(b))
Note the two verbs. Record and examine. A platform that writes logs nobody opens satisfies half of a standard.
GDPR does not prescribe logging in the same detail, but Article 5(2) makes the controller responsible for being able to demonstrate compliance with all six principles in Article 5(1), and Article 24(1) repeats that duty. In practice the only way to demonstrate that access was limited is to show a record of the access that occurred.
Article 15(1)(c) entitles a data subject to know the recipients or categories of recipient to whom their personal data have been or will be disclosed. Article 19 then goes further and puts a positive duty on you.
The controller shall communicate any rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing carried out in accordance with Article 16, Article 17(1) and Article 18 to each recipient to whom the personal data have been disclosed, unless this proves impossible or involves disproportionate effort. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 19)
You cannot communicate an erasure to each recipient if you do not know who the recipients are. In a modern warehouse the recipients are usually internal: the twelve downstream tables, three dashboards and one feature store that copied the column.
HIPAA asks a version of the same question at 45 CFR 164.528(a)(1), which gives an individual the right to an accounting of disclosures made in the six years before the request. The section lists nine categories of disclosure that are excluded from the accounting, including treatment, payment and health care operations, so the scope is narrower than it first appears. It is still a six year lookback.
Both of those are lineage questions, and both need it at column level rather than table level, because the obligation attaches to a person's data and not to a dataset. Table level lineage tells you a table was copied. Column level lineage tells you which patient identifier ended up in the feature store.
Article 17(1) gives an individual the right to obtain erasure without undue delay on six listed grounds, including that the data are no longer necessary for the purpose, that consent has been withdrawn with no other ground available, and that the data were unlawfully processed. Article 5(1)(e) sets the background rule that data are kept in a form permitting identification for no longer than is necessary. Article 12(3) gives you one month to respond, extendable by two further months where the request is complex, provided you tell the individual inside the first month.
HIPAA has no equivalent right. It runs the other way. 45 CFR 164.316(b)(2)(i) requires documentation to be retained for six years from the date of its creation or the date when it last was in effect, whichever is later. An organization subject to both regimes therefore has to be able to delete a person's data on request under one law while preserving records under the other, which is a policy decision per data category and not a switch you flip on a platform.
The tooling requirement is that retention lives with the classification. A policy that says data classified this way is deleted after this period, applied automatically to every column that carries the classification, is the only version of this that survives growth. It also depends entirely on capability 6, because an erasure you cannot trace to every copy is an erasure you cannot certify.
Article 33(1) requires the controller to notify the competent supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of a personal data breach, unless it is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Where the 72 hours are missed, the notification has to carry the reasons for the delay. Article 33(3)(a) says the notification must describe the categories and approximate number of data subjects concerned and the categories and approximate number of records concerned. Article 33(5) requires you to document every breach, its effects and the remedial action, so the authority can verify compliance.
HIPAA is more generous on time and narrower on scope. 45 CFR 164.404(b) requires notification to affected individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of a breach of unsecured protected health information.
The 72 hour clock is what makes this a tooling question rather than a legal one. Article 33(3)(a) is asking which categories and how many, and that is a catalog and lineage query. Teams that cannot answer it in hours end up notifying with an estimate and correcting it later, which is exactly the position nobody wants to be in.
45 CFR 164.316(a) requires reasonable and appropriate policies and procedures, and 164.316(b)(1) requires them to be maintained in written form, which may be electronic. The implementation specifications are all marked Required: retain for six years under (b)(2)(i), make the documentation available to the people who have to follow it under (b)(2)(ii), and review and update it in response to environmental or operational changes under (b)(2)(iii).
GDPR reaches the same result through Article 24(2), on implementing data protection policies where proportionate, and Article 30(3), which requires the record of processing activities to be in writing, including in electronic form.
Policies do get written. What goes wrong is that they are written somewhere the data is not, so nobody reading a table ever sees the rule that governs it. Attaching the policy to the asset is what metadata governance is for, and it is the difference between a policy that is followed and a policy that exists.
Five things satisfy both regimes at the same time. If you are standing up a program for the first time, these are the five to build first, because every hour spent on them counts twice.
The quality of what is in the catalog decides whether any of this holds. A classification applied to a column that is stale or duplicated somewhere else does not protect anything, which is why this work and data quality management are the same program rather than two.
The differences below are the ones that change what you build, not the ones that change the vocabulary. Each row names the provision on both sides.
| Question | GDPR | HIPAA |
|---|---|---|
| What makes holding the data lawful | Article 6(1): one of six lawful bases, and for health data an Article 9(2) condition on top. | 164.502(a): the use or disclosure must fall inside the permitted or required set, or carry an authorization under 164.508. |
| The role of consent | One lawful basis among six. Article 7(3) lets the individual withdraw at any time and says it must be as easy to withdraw as to give. | Not the operating model. Treatment, payment and health care operations need no authorization; an authorization is required only outside the permitted set. |
| The default limiting rule | Article 5(1)(c) data minimisation: adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary. | 164.502(b) minimum necessary, with the exceptions listed at 164.502(b)(2), including disclosures to a provider for treatment. |
| Deletion | Article 17(1) right to erasure on six listed grounds, with Article 19 requiring you to pass it on to each recipient. | No right to erasure. 164.316(b)(2)(i) requires documentation to be retained for six years. |
| The clock on an individual request | Article 12(3): one month, extendable by two further months if you notify inside the first month. | 164.524(b)(2): 30 days, with one extension of no more than 30 days and a written statement of the reasons. |
| The clock on a breach | Article 33(1): 72 hours to the supervisory authority where feasible, with reasons required if you miss it. | 164.404(b): no later than 60 calendar days after discovery, to the affected individuals. |
| Telling people where their data went | Article 15(1)(c): the recipients or categories of recipient. Article 19: notify each of them of an erasure or rectification. | 164.528(a)(1): an accounting of disclosures for the six years before the request, with nine listed exclusions. |
| The vendor relationship | Article 28(3): a written contract with the eight listed terms, including deletion or return of the data at the end of the service. | 164.504(e)(2): a business associate contract setting the permitted uses and the safeguards, with 164.504(e)(1)(ii) requiring you to act on a known pattern of breach by the associate. |
| The ceiling on a penalty | Article 83(4): up to 10 000 000 EUR or 2 percent of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. Article 83(5): up to 20 000 000 EUR or 4 percent, for infringements of the basic principles and of data subject rights. | 160.404(b)(2) sets four tiers by culpability, each with a per violation minimum, a per violation maximum and a calendar year cap for identical violations. The dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation every year and published in the table at 45 CFR 102.3. |
Note the asymmetry in that last row, because it is misquoted constantly. GDPR sets its two ceilings in the text of Article 83 itself, so those two numbers are stable and citable. HIPAA does not: 45 CFR 160.404(a) says the amounts are adjusted annually and published at 45 CFR part 102, so any fixed dollar figure you read in an article is only as current as the year it was written. If you need the number, read the table, not a blog.
An audit is a request for artifacts. The useful way to think about tooling is to ask which artifact each component produces, because that is what you will be asked to hand over.
The Article 30 record of processing activities and the 164.514(d)(2)(i) statement of who needs access to which categories are both, in substance, an export from a catalog: every asset, its owner, its data categories, its purpose, its recipients and its retention. The reason to hold this in a catalog rather than a document is Article 30(4), which requires you to make the record available to the supervisory authority on request. A record assembled by hand each time it is asked for will be out of date the day it is produced.
The same export is what tells you whether your inventory is complete, which is why the coverage of a data governance platform across sources with no native connector matters more in a regulated estate than any individual feature does.
Three obligations are lineage questions in disguise. Article 19 asks you to tell each recipient about an erasure. 164.528 asks you to account for disclosures over six years. Article 33(3)(a) asks, inside 72 hours, which categories and approximately how many records were affected. All three are answerable in minutes with column level lineage and answerable in weeks without it.
Under 164.312(a)(1) an auditor asks for the list rather than for a description of your access model: which roles can read which classified data today, who approved that, and when it was last reviewed. Classification policies are what make that list expressible in a sentence rather than in ten thousand table names, and an approval step on policy changes is what turns the list into evidence rather than a snapshot.
The four minute walkthrough above shows the mechanics: a policy with its own label and color so the classification is visible in the catalog, rules that tag columns by keyword or regular expression and pick up new tables as they arrive, a managed asset view listing every object under the policy with a CSV export for the audit, and a reviewer approval step on every policy change. The CSV export is the artifact. The approval history is what makes it credible.
Every platform in this category, Decube included, will tell you it helps with GDPR and HIPAA. That is true and it is also incomplete. Five duties stay with you no matter what you buy, and each of them is put there by the text of the law rather than by a vendor's reluctance.
There is a sixth that is easy to miss. Several HIPAA specifications are marked Addressable rather than Required, and 164.306(d)(3) says that where you do not implement one, you must document why it would not be reasonable and appropriate and implement an equivalent alternative measure if one is. The documenting is yours. A vendor cannot write your justification for turning something off.
GDPR and HIPAA are the two most searched, but they are rarely the only two in scope. Decube customers in regulated markets also answer to OJK in Indonesia, APRA in Australia, MAS in Singapore, and the NAIC framework for insurance in the United States. Almost no vendor content covers those, which is why buyers in those markets get generic answers when they ask.
The useful point is that the nine capabilities above do not change. Inventory, classification, purpose, access, logging, lineage, retention, breach scoping and documentation are what every one of those supervisors asks for, in their own vocabulary and with their own reporting formats. What changes is who receives the export and how often, not what has to exist behind it.
If you are also deploying AI on top of that data, the EU AI Act adds its own timetable, and it is worth naming which obligation you mean because they land on different dates. According to the European Commission's own guidelines for providers of general purpose AI models, read on 6 September 2026, obligations for providers of GPAI models entered into application on 2 August 2025, the Commission's enforcement powers enter into application from 2 August 2026, and providers of GPAI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 must comply by 2 August 2027. That is three dates for one set of obligations, and any article that gives you a single "EU AI Act deadline" has collapsed them. The Commission guidance is the source to check against.
Start with capability 1 and capability 2, in that order, and do not start anywhere else. Every other item on the list depends on knowing where the regulated data is and what it is. Access control without classification degenerates into a list of table names. Lineage without an inventory covers the sources you happened to connect. Retention without classification is a policy nobody can apply.
Then work down the list in order, because the order is not arbitrary. Purpose depends on inventory, access depends on classification, logging depends on access, lineage depends on the catalog, retention depends on lineage, and breach scoping depends on all of them.
The test to apply to any platform you are evaluating is whether it can produce, on demand and without a project, the four artifacts an auditor asks for: the asset inventory with categories and retention, the grant list per classification with its approval history, the access log with evidence of review, and the column level lineage for a named identifier. The word HIPAA appearing on a website proves nothing. Ask for those four on your own data during the trial.
GDPR is a European regulation covering all personal data about anyone in the EU, and it is built around the individual's rights over that data. HIPAA is a United States rule covering protected health information held by covered entities and their business associates, and it is built around the custodian's duty of care. The practical differences that change what you build are erasure, where GDPR Article 17 gives a right to deletion and HIPAA gives none while 45 CFR 164.316(b)(2)(i) requires six years of retained documentation; the breach clock, which is 72 hours to the supervisory authority under GDPR Article 33(1) and 60 calendar days to individuals under 45 CFR 164.404(b); and consent, which is one of six lawful bases under GDPR Article 6(1) but is not the HIPAA operating model at all.
No. There is no right to erasure anywhere in HIPAA. The Privacy Rule gives individuals a right of access under 45 CFR 164.524, a right to request amendment, and a right to an accounting of disclosures under 164.528, but not a right to have their record deleted. HIPAA pushes in the opposite direction: 45 CFR 164.316(b)(2)(i) requires documentation to be retained for six years from creation or from when it last was in effect, whichever is later. An organization subject to both regimes has to decide, per data category, which obligation governs.
It is the set of controls that let a covered entity or business associate show that access to protected health information is limited, recorded and reviewed. In tooling terms it is four things: an inventory naming which systems and columns hold PHI, a statement of which roles need which categories of PHI as required by 45 CFR 164.514(d)(2)(i), access control implementing 164.312(a)(1) with unique user identification, and audit controls under 164.312(b) plus the regular review of activity records required by 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D). The written policies behind those controls have to be kept for six years under 164.316(b)(2)(i).
GDPR never uses the phrase, but Article 30 describes one. The record of processing activities must contain the purposes of the processing, the categories of data subjects and of personal data, the categories of recipients, the envisaged time limits for erasure of the different categories of data, and a general description of the security measures under Article 32(1). Article 30(3) requires it in writing, including electronic form, and Article 30(4) requires you to make it available to the supervisory authority on request. A catalog that holds owner, classification, purpose, recipients and retention against every asset produces that record as an export.
It can cover the overlap, which is most of the engineering. Five things satisfy both at once: inventory and classification, access limited to what a role needs, technical security measures including encryption and pseudonymisation, a logged and reviewed record of activity, and written documentation retained and reviewed. What no single platform settles for you is the conflict between GDPR Article 17 erasure and the HIPAA six year retention rule at 164.316(b)(2)(i). That is a policy decision per data category, taken by you, and then configured.
Exports, not screenshots. Four artifacts cover most of what is asked for. The asset inventory with owner, data categories, purpose and retention, which is the Article 30 record. The grant list per classification with who approved each grant and when, which is what 45 CFR 164.312(a)(1) is asking you to demonstrate. The access log with evidence that somebody reviews it, because 164.312(b) says record and examine and 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D) makes the review a required specification. And column level lineage for a named identifier, which is what answers GDPR Article 19 and the 164.528 accounting of disclosures.
Judge them on the four artifacts an audit asks for rather than on the logos on the website. The tool has to discover every source that holds PHI including the ones with no native connector, classify down to the column against something like the eighteen identifier types listed at 45 CFR 164.514(b)(2), bind access to those classifications rather than to table names, log and expose who read what, carry column level lineage so an erasure or an accounting of disclosures is answerable, and export all of it. Decube covers those in one platform, which is what lets the inventory, the grant list, the log and the lineage be read together instead of assembled from four tools at audit time. Ask any vendor to produce the four artifacts on your own data during the trial.
Under GDPR Article 33(1) the controller notifies the competent supervisory authority without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of the breach, unless it is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons; if the 72 hours are missed the notification must carry the reasons for the delay. Under 45 CFR 164.404(b) a covered entity notifies affected individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of a breach of unsecured protected health information. GDPR Article 33(3)(a) also requires you to state the categories and approximate number of data subjects and records concerned, which is the part that needs a catalog.
GDPR sets its ceilings in the text. Article 83(4) allows fines up to 10 000 000 EUR or 2 percent of total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, for infringements of controller and processor obligations. Article 83(5) allows up to 20 000 000 EUR or 4 percent, whichever is higher, for infringements of the basic principles, the conditions for consent and data subject rights. HIPAA works differently: 45 CFR 160.404(b)(2) sets four tiers by culpability, each with a per violation minimum, a per violation maximum and a calendar year cap for identical violations, and 160.404(a) says the amounts are adjusted for inflation annually and published in the table at 45 CFR 102.3. Read that table for the current figures rather than trusting a number quoted in an article.
It adds obligations on the AI side rather than changing the data controls, and its dates land differently depending on which obligation you mean. According to the European Commission's guidelines for providers of general purpose AI models, obligations for providers of GPAI models entered into application on 2 August 2025, the Commission's enforcement powers enter into application from 2 August 2026, and providers of GPAI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 must comply by 2 August 2027. Never treat "the EU AI Act deadline" as one date. For a data team the practical effect is that the classification, lineage and access records you already keep for GDPR and HIPAA are the same records that evidence what an AI system was trained on and what it can reach.
First step to AI Readiness
Table of Contents
Sneak peek from the data world.
Bring lineage, quality, governance, and AI together in one platform—so your teams and AI agents can act with confidence.
_For%20light%20backgrounds.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.webp)