Scalable Data Quality Frameworks for Record Keeper Aggregation in Financial Platforms - Proposes a framework to standardize and enhance the quality of financial datasets across heterogeneous record keepers

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

70

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DATA SCIENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING (ISSN: 2692-5141)

Volume 05, Issue 01, 2025, pages 70-97

Published Date: - 27-04-2025

Doi: -

https://doi.org/10.55640/ijdsml-05-01-13

Scalable Data Quality Frameworks for Record Keeper

Aggregation in Financial Platforms - Proposes a framework to

standardize and enhance the quality of financial datasets across

heterogeneous record keepers

Santosh Durgam

Manager of software engineering, Morningstar Investments LLC

Chicago, Illinois, USA

ABSTRACT

With the rapid development of financial services, recording and data aggregation need to be efficient so
information from varying record keepers (banks, custodians, pension administrators) can be aggregated. The
downside of various data formats in disparate datasets coming together into one unified place for the sake of
being in one place is glaring in the data format, standards of how it will be reported, and lack of metadata.
Inaccuracies, timeliness, and unreliability cause financial data to threaten business operations and compliance
requirements. Based on financial datasets, it frames an aggregation framework for producing a scalable,
standardized, and improved data quality aggregated dataset. Such data quality can be addressed by modular
architecture, real-time validation, and centralized monitoring provided by the architecture.Using grace with the
metadata-driven rule handling and automation via ETL pipelines to guarantee integrity and compliance with data,
the framework also leverages the framework. A case study of a multi-manager pension platform using the
proposed framework is further demonstrated, leading to improved data consistency, reporting timeliness, and
reduction of reconciliation errors. The paper ends by discussing ethical issues, explaining how to practice the
framework, and looking at two future trends employing AI for predictive error models, blockchain for data lineage
and audibility, and how regulators can use RegTech to automate the reporting process with compliance.
Considering all this, the above-proposed framework provides the perfect overall solution for financial institutions,
fintech platforms, and asset managers to make the operation more efficient and build trust between financial data
in the industry.

KEYWORDS

Data Aggregation, Record Keepers, Data Quality Framework, Compliance, AI and ML, Blockchain.

INTRODUCTION

The progress of the financial services sector is so rapid that the ability to aggregate and analyze data taken by
multiple record keepers is increasingly important. Transactional record-keeping, which serves as the backbone of
the record-keeping within investment and financial platforms, relies on record keepers, whose names include
banks, custodians, pension fund administrators, and transfer agents. The more fragmented and reliant systems
become real-time analytics, the more important it is to integrate data in various record-keeping systems. Each
contributor, however, operates on their own data structure, information standards, reporting standards, and
metadata norms. Despite these differences, the accurate and timely consolidation of financial information is an

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

71

important challenge for an organization.Financial platforms are called record keeper aggregation when they have
to aggregate and join datasets from various custodians or record-maintaining institutions. This is key in building
holistic client portfolios, making regulatory reports, assessing risk exposure, and incorporating data-driven
investment decisions. The importance of data aggregation is, therefore, rarely achieved thanks to technical
inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and quality assurance failures. The increasing financial data volume and investor
demand for more transparency lead to friction, eroding trust, and increasing operational risk.

The fundamental exponent of the challenge in aggregation is such a situation

–

data disparity. The record keepers

from which financial platforms are required to collect information are largely unknown and operate in completely
different ways with how they define, store, and transmit data. One record keeper provides it periodically (XML due
with much metadata), and another just CSV extracted per week (with no descriptors). This variance results in
schema mismatches, semantic inconsistencies, and doing a bit of a bad job when trying to validate or reconcile data
across the board.This heterogeneity also affects the performance of downstream systems for client reporting tools,
business intelligence dashboards, and compliance engines, making it an excellent factor. For example, any
investment platform collecting fund performance data from 15 different custodians would have difficulty

standardizing terminologies such as “position cost,” “average price,” or “settled balance.” It slows report generation

and, more importantly, can cause errors, leading to regulatory breaches or reputational damage.

Many record keepers do not use standardized data models. These models are typically optimized for internal
processing and not external aggregation. This makes even seemingly simple data fields such as trade dates or
account identifiers with their formatting or nomenclature differ, making matters even worse for integration efforts.
Given the need for these with financial platforms combined with the limitation of current aggregation methods, the
absence of real-time updates presents a very serious gap in data quality management.The technical and scalable
framework proposed in this article is to improve and standardize the quality of financial datasets aggregated across
multiple record keepers. The first goal addresses the issues related to gathering, validating, and normalizing data
from different custodial sources. The point is to be able to support financial institutions, fintech platforms, and asset
managers based on high-quality data to run analytics, fulfill their compliance requirements, and maintain trust.

After these backgrounds, the article lists record keepers’ roles and responsibilities in the broader financial

ecosystem. It goes into further detail about the types of data quality problems they face in multi-source aggregation
environments. After that, it introduces the core principles of a scalable data quality framework in a modular design,
which includes real-time validation, metadata-driven rule management, and a centralized monitoring dashboard.
The case study involving a multi-manager pension platform is further illustrated, and the framework is concluded
with best practices, ethical considerations, and future trends such as AI-driven quality assessments and blockchain-
based audibility.After reading this article to the end, readers will have a clear picture of the technical, operational,
and strategic aspects involved in implementing scalable data quality frameworks. Knowledge of these points
provides the necessary assurance and consistency for a financial platform to navigate the disquieting notion of
modern record-keeper aggregation.

The Role of Record Keepers in Financial Ecosystems

Who Are Record Keepers?

Record keepers maintain and manage transactional data and account-level information of clients, institutions, or
portfolios in the financial services ecosystem. Essentially, these organizations act as sources of truth for the financial
record and as the central tracker of the asset's ownership, transactional history, valuations, and compliance data
(Sardana, 2022). Banks, pension administrators, mutual fund companies, custodians, and insurance companies are
common record keepers. In addition, each of these institutions heavily maintains proprietary systems to record
data such as account balance, contributions, disbursements, trades, and valuations, often subject to steeply
regulated guidelines.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

72

Figure 1: The Benefits & Drawbacks Record Keeping in Financial Ecosystems

For example, in defined contribution retirement plans, the record keeper ensures that participant accounts are
accurately reflected following account allocations, employer matching, and market performance. Investment
management is one field where custodians are record keepers, managing clients' asset holdings, processing
settlements, and reporting corporate actions. In all cases, whatever transactions are stored by these record keepers
are not transactional data; they are essential for client reporting, regulatory filings, compliance assessment, and
performance analysis. This means incongruencies or inaccuracies in record keeper data will affect all subsequent
financial systems, affecting client trust, operational efficiency, and legal compliance.

Types of Record-Keeping Systems

Record-keeping systems have very different structures and technology underlying them between institutions, which
can generally be split into legacy infrastructures and modern digital platforms (Chavan, 2021). Numerous financial
institutions are decades old, relying on mainframe systems and flat file structures like COBOL-based environments
or batch processing. Although these systems are mostly stable, they are inflexible and are not suitable for working
with real-time data exchange or integration with native cloud platforms (Dhanagari, 2024). Legacy systems
ordinarily export such data in CSV or TXT files over secure FTP without standardization or interoperability.Modern
record-keeping platforms are API-driven, modular, and cloud-compatible. The systems are based on RESTful APIs in
JSON or XML format, and microservice architectures are adopted to ensure smooth data exchange, version control,
and fast scalability. BlackRock, Fidelity, and Charles Schwab-type firms have invested in modernizing their back-end
systems to reconcile in real time, have dynamic reports, and have multi-channel access.

Besides, the record-keeping system can be classified depending on the architecture

—

centralized or distributed.

Since all data is stored in a centralized system where the data is managed under a single governance structure, it is
also known as a centralized system. Centralized systems are easier to control but become bottlenecks and single
points of failure. On the other hand, one characteristic of a decentralized system is that several departments or
entities affiliated with them can have separate databases in sync. This configuration provides data sovereignty and
some flexibility at the cost of consistency and timely synchronization.Great difficulties are created during
aggregation due to technological disparity between record keepers. One provider may provide granular, real-time
account-level APIs; another may offer weekly flat file extracts. Aligning them is a manual process and prone to error
when no unifying schema or interface standard exists. The system's inability to be uniform suppresses the possibility
of developing scalable, automated data pipelines essential for modern finance

—

real-time analytics and rich

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

73

customer experience.

Figure 2: Various Types of Records Management Software

Aggregation Challenges Due to Divergence

The biggest issue when it comes to collecting data from various sources is the lack of standardization in data across
sources. There is no 'correct' format that each record keeper should categorize as, even when referring to the same
financial concept. "NAV" in one system represents the Net Asset Value, "Fund Price" in another, and one system
would break the daily and end-of-day valuations into different labels. Automated processing of these semantic
mismatches becomes very complicated due to such mismatches, especially in those environments where timely
accurate data is gold at robo-advisory platforms, wealth management dashboards, and compliance systems.In
addition to semantics, there is a structural mismatch. Some providers might deliver the data as nested JSON files
with metadata-rich labels and others as flat files with ambiguous column headers and undocumented field
variations. Configuring mappings from one system to another without metadata or documentation requires
institutional knowledge of which fields exist in which system and how to map them. Many datasets have null values,
duplicated transactions, or batch delays, which frustrate real-time analytics or performance attribution.

An additional critical divergence occurs in time granularity. Different record keepers may update only thrice or once
a day and then again once every fifteen minutes. Especially when aggregating this data for portfolio-level insights,
anything inconsistent regarding update frequency can lead to misaligned assumptions, misleading dashboards,
inconsistency with the regulator, etc. Another is that it becomes all but impossible to reconcile platforms, especially
when transaction IDs or timestamps are unstandardized across platforms (Goel et al., 2024).Legal and jurisdictional
differences create additional wounds. In particular, in different countries, some record keepers may be bound by
local financial regulations, which restrict the data that can be available, retained, or transmitted in a format. For
example, European providers may be subject to GDPR, and U.S.-based firms to SEC or FINRA data handling rules.
For these datasets to be integrated without violating compliance, the framework piece must be technically robust

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

74

and legally aware.

The complication of records and data standards handling financial data aggregation is complex and multi-faceted.
The technological, structural, and semantic differences between systems that make up a scalable data quality
framework must be accommodated with flexibility, automation, and compliance-aware functionality (Zarrabi
Jorshari,2016). The first step to building such a framework that can support real-time decisions, accurate reporting,
and operational excellence in modern financial platforms is understanding the role of its record keepers and the
diversity of records maintained.

Key Data Quality Issues in Aggregated Financial Data

In the financial services industry, the problem of data aggregation from multiple record keepers is unique in that
data quality is highly heterogeneous in highly heterogeneous systems. As with record keepers such as custodians,
fund administrators, or retirement service providers, there are different data structures, formats, and validation
protocols (Saffady, 2021). The inconsistencies and quality gaps are problematic when the client pools their datasets
into one financial platform (for example, client reporting, regulatory compliance, or investment analytics purposes).
Some of the most pressing data quality issues that arise in such environments, some of which are structural
inconsistencies, semantic mismatches, latency issues, and validation gaps, are highlighted in this section.

Structural Inconsistencies

Aggregated financial datasets have many structural inconsistencies, both the most visible and the most disruptive.
This happens when data from several record keepers are amalgamated and showcased in dissimilar arrangements
or reflect different architecture (Raju, 2017). For instance, one record keeper may send data in JSON format with
nested objects, whereas the next may submit a flat CSV file lacking hierarchy. These differences make ingestion and
normalization complex when fields do not match or follow different hierarchical logic.

Data models vary significantly. Fund transaction data can be handled differently by a single provider, who presents
it as a single object with various attributes (date, transaction type, security ID, and amount). In a different structure,
another provider also splits this into many relational tables or files. The inability to have a standardized data schema
or a universal mapping layer results in broken joins, null references, and incorrect transformations in the extract-
transform-load (ETL) process (Kumar, 2019).It also leads to schema drift over time due to a lack of schema
enforcement. Downstream system failures or errors may occur due to record keepers introducing new fields or
changing the data type of an existing one (changing a date field to a string.) If real-time is not detected and
remediated, such structural shifts can stop an entire data pipeline in its tracks or result in reporting inaccuracy.

Semantic Mismatches and Metadata Conflicts

Semantic mismatches threaten data quality in a different but just as destructive way as structural differences. In
these cases, the fields are structurally similar but have different meanings or contexts. One manager may point to
a record and say NAV (Net Asset Value), while another says Fund Value to mean the same thing (Sardana, 2022).
Both terms are sometimes used but are equivalent, though the calculation slightly varies with one term, resulting
in confusion and poor financial reporting.The problem compounds further when there are metadata conflicts.
Ingest data often lose or poorly translate metadata, information regarding source system, update frequency, field
description, or lineage. This means that the aggregated data can miss out on contextual details necessary to
understand data and come back up its source.

For example, if they have timestamp fields in your feeds, they may have the timezone designated but get stripped
from them so that they will have different execution times (for high-frequency trading environments). Also,
inconsistently using codes or reference values is frequent. An equity trade could be coded as "EQ" by one record
keeper, maybe "EQUITY" or numerical value "101" by another (Karwa, 2023). Without a sound metadata registry
and proper reference dictionaries, the integrity and usability of the dataset are reduced.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

75

Table 1: Key Data Quality Issues in Aggregated Financial Data and Their Challenges

Data Quality Issue

Description

Examples

Challenges

Structural
Inconsistencies

Data from multiple sources may
have different formats,
architectures, or hierarchies.

- JSON format with nested
objects vs. flat CSV
- Different data models for
fund transactions

- Complex ingestion
and normalization
- Broken joins, null
references
- Schema drift due to
lack of enforcement

Semantic
Mismatches

Fields may have similar structures
but different meanings or contexts,
leading to confusion.

- NAV (Net Asset Value) vs.
Fund Value
- Inconsistent reference codes
for equity trades (e.g., "EQ",
"EQUITY", "101")

- Confusion in financial
reporting
- Poor metadata
translation or loss

Timeliness and
Latency Issues

Delayed or asynchronous data feeds
can impact real-time or near-real-
time decision making.

- Daily batch data vs. intraday
or hourly updates
- Portfolio rebalancing
affected by delayed fund
holdings updates

- Misalignment of
values
- Incorrect data used
for time-sensitive
decisions
- Problems in trade
surveillance or audit
trails

Integrity and
Validation Gaps

Data integrity issues arise due to
errors, omissions, or duplication of
data.

- Missing values (e.g., fund
contribution without allocated
units)
- Duplicate historical data

- Inaccurate
calculations and
reporting
- Compliance red flags
- Risk to client
confidence

Timeliness and Latency of Data Feeds

In the case financial platforms operate in real-time or near real-time environments, the requirement does not only
raise importance but is critically important. There are many risks when record keepers can introduce delayed or
asynchronous data feeds, especially when such feeds are used to make time-sensitive decisions using stale or partial
information.More problems arise from timeliness issues. Some record keepers may transmit data on a daily batch
basis (batched data), and others may update intraday (in a specific interval) or hourly (Middelkoop,2021). For
example, if the data is unnormalized and unlabeled and part of a platform that aggregates data across these
timelines, the dashboards and analytics may suffer a misalignment of values across the boards, causing the end
users to count on incorrect data.

An example would be in portfolio rebalancing situations where if one of one's custodians updates their fund
holdings inaccurately due to delayed updates, the positions could become over- or underweighted. A system that
needs up-to-date records for AML or KYC compliance runs the risk of invalidating real transactions or missing signs
of suspicious behavior because its records are outdated.Additionally, reconstructing transaction flows by
sequencing events is problematic owing to the lack of synchronized clocks or sequence identifiers across the data
sources. This is quite insidious in trade surveillance or audit trails, where time down to the minute is required
(Musembi, 2019).For this, platforms need to employ ingestion time stamping, data freshness scoring, and latency
monitoring tools. Although effective, a disadvantage of these solutions is that they require coordination with data
providers, and such coordination may not be frequently possible or even contractually mandated.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

76

Figure 3: Comparison between AML or KYC compliance

Integrity and Validation Gaps

Data integrity is the most critical and fundamental aspect of data quality. Data can pass through multiple systems
in a multi-record-keeper environment, each introducing errors, omissions, or duplication. Common integrity issues
are missing values, inconsistent balances, out-of-range figures, and misaligned identifiers.For example, fund
contribution transactions may be received without corresponding units allocated, or interest payment may be
received, but date entries are not made. These gaps disrupt performance calculations and contravene accounting
and regulatory reporting requirements. Suppose the ledgers containing AUM and performance fees are out of
balance or inaccurate. In that case, the AUM itself may be incorrect and will directly impact client and investor
confidence and client billing.

Duplication is another frequent issue. If record keepers keep such historical data, they often resend it for
completeness. However, without proper deduplication logic, such as TX hash or full comparisons, the platform can
ingest duplicate entries. Since a fair amount of data is omitted from this indicator, it blows up financial metrics to
create false visualizations or generate compliance red flags.This lack of cross-field validation leads to a logical fallacy
(Jonck&Minnaar,2015). For instance, an 'Executed' trade has a settlement date in the future or a zero-trade
quantity. Without a rules engine to enforce such dependencies, propagating erroneous records can land in
reporting systems.

This important control ensures that such integrity issues are detected and remediated. Since reference datasets
(bank statements, fund admin files) must be aligned and of high quality, automated reconciliation is effective as
long as the reference datasets are aligned and of high quality. In practice, platforms also need to allow for exception
workflows in which flagged entries must be routed to operations teams for manual resolution under defined SLA
(Service Level Agreement) windows (Konneru, 2021).

Core Principles of a Scalable Data Quality Framework

Reducing the error, incompleteness, and lags in financial data provided by uncorrelated record keepers is crucial
for the design of scalable data quality frameworks. The framework gives rise to adherence to certain key principles,
such as seamless integration, rigorous validation, and comprehensive monitoring.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

77

Modular Architecture for Interoperability

A scalable data quality framework must be designed to ensure modularity in the context of scalability. Microservices
or container-based architecture is the key to achieving scalability and flexibility (Singh, 2021). The framework's
ability to scale data quality checks by individual system modules enables these architectures to make the overall
system very scalable regarding changes in the data sources, formats, and business requirements.The framework
can split separate functionality using microservices architecture, starting with data validation, cleansing, and
aggregation, into separate independent services. The framework can cope with changing workloads without
affecting other parts. Each service can be deployed, scaled, and maintained independently. This allows new record
keepers to join and also differentiates data quality processes for each source of data that affects the system without
requiring a system refresh.

Containerization using tools such as Docker also ensures that the whole framework and its dependencies can be
easily packaged and deployed in any environment. It helps with the portability and the overhead costs of
infrastructure. As the system expands, new and old containers under the system can be added or deleted
dynamically according to workload to provide a flexible and wasteful resource management method for data quality
operation that spans a finance platform.

Figure 4: Benefits of using Docker

Data Quality Dimensions: Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency, Timeliness

Any data quality framework must be able to measure and enforce the four core dimensions of data quality

—

that

is, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and timeliness. These are the basis of managing data quality and are
important to ensure that data between record keepers matches the acceptable levels for financial reporting,
regulatory compliance, and judgment (Raju, 2017).This term refers to the accuracy of the data, which actually
depicts the real world. For example, a change in a client's account balance cannot be inaccurate. Valuable key rulings
regarding the incoming data and robust verification should be included, which is the comparison of the incoming
data with authoritative sources or with cross-system checks to identify the discrepancies.

Completeness means, yes, all of the data available has been recorded. Thus, financial aggregation refers to ensuring
that transaction details, account holder data, etc., are present in the dataset. Downstream analysis and reporting
errors can occur when any missing or incomplete data occurs. This has to be addressed by the framework using

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

78

automated checks that automatically flag incomplete records and cause corrective actions before they can be
further processed.Consistency focuses on data that is uniform across systems and formats. When data is captured
in different formats across a multi-record keeper environment or even uses different terminologies, conditional
logic is needed to consolidate it (Chrysafis et al., 2019). Frameworks should include standards such as data
transformations or mappings to make the data across different sources consistent. A good example would be
providing a framework to translate from different date formats or currency symbols to standard representations,
thus preventing errors in the aggregated datasets.

It is related to data being up-to-date and processed within a specified time frame. Financial data has to be refreshed
and validated regularly for use in financial reporting and compliance. The system then has to contain scheduling
mechanisms for periodically updating data and automated validation to prevent that data from being outdated and
inaccurate.Together, these four dimensions define the quality of the data and can be used for overall measurement
and improvement of data quality throughout all record keepers. These dimensions are well integrated through a
proper framework that covers every step of the data lifecycle, from ingestion to validation, processing, and
reporting.

Automation via ETL Pipelines and Real-Time Monitoring

In order to promote quality data, all frameworks must be automated, including ETL pipelines and real-time
monitoring systems. These tools help get data shape and ensure quality standards are fulfilled for these data all
through the data pipeline (Krupa & Goel, 2023).Aggregating data from several record keepers necessitates using
ETL pipelines. By automating data extraction, transformation, and loading, pipelines achieve this by reducing the
chance of human error, speeding up, and making data processing faster and more reliable. Apache NiFi, Talend, and
Apache Airflow are the first ETL tools published by Apache, and they were favored greatly because of the features
they offer in automating data workflows (Singu, 2022). Scheduling, error handling, and logging are built into these
tools and are excellent tools for managing complex data pipelines in financial systems.

Real-time monitoring tools ensure that data quality stays high throughout the lifecycle and that data being
transformed also involves quality (Nyati, 2018). Some key metrics it can monitor with tools like Prometheus or
Grafana are data accuracy rates, missing values, and processing times. These tools will alert administrators to
anomalies or quality problems occurring in real-time. This level of monitoring guarantees that any issues are found
early and faulty data will not advance further into the system.The framework can process huge volumes of data
while maintaining the highest quality because it combines ETL automation and real-time monitoring. It also
automates the checks for quality to be applied consistently with all the data sources, reducing the chances of
manual errors.

Metadata-Driven Quality Assessment

A data quality framework should be based on metadata management architecture. Metadata is a crucial context
on the data, such as source, structure, and transformation rules, that enables tracking data quality over time and
compliance with different standards as they evolve. The framework can store and manage the information about
the data flow, data transformation, and data quality rules in Metadata repositories. The framework dangles
metadata about the process of data being processed, transformed, and validated and thus gives granular
information about data lineage, visibility, and traceability (Hume et al., 2020). For example, the same is highly
important in financial platforms since they are subject to regulatory requirements that data must be auditable, and
it is known where it is from.

Metadata-driven quality assessment also helps with schema evolution since one has to accommodate changes in
data structures over time. During the boarding of new record keepers or changes in data standards, the framework
can take advantage of metadata to automatically adjust data validation and transformation rules to ensure data
quality standards are always met without any manual intervention.More specifically, creating metadata-driven
processes to augment the framework will enable monitoring, auditing, and adaptability to all data quality activities,
thus making the data quality efforts sustainable across heterogeneous record keepers over a longer time period

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

79

(Bhaskaran,2020).

Proposed Framework Design and Components

To design a scalable data quality framework for the aggregation record keeper in financial platforms, one must
follow a structured approach to maintain data consistency, accuracy, and timeliness in multiple heterogeneous
sources. What makes sense is to set up this framework based on data ingestion, validation, cleansing, monitoring,
governance, and scalability of data aggregation to facilitate seamless integration of the financial systems with the
data thus aggregated. The rest of this paper describes the essential components of the proposed framework.

Unified Data Ingestion Layer

The framework is initially built upon the Unified Data Ingestion Layer, an ingress points for data from multiple
record-keeping sources. It normalizes and standardizes incoming data, irrespective of the format or protocol, and
makes it ready for further processing. Connectors, normalizers, and parsers take various data and turn it into a
consistent format that can easily be validated and analyzed (Chavan, 2021; Mozzherin et al., 2017).Connectors
handle various data transport protocols such as REST APIs, FTP, SFTP, and message queues. To integrate with
financial systems, these connectors are configured to take data from record keepers and flow it to the data
processing layer. For instance, APIs take precedence to fetch real-time data, while FTP or SFTP protocols suit better
uploading bulk data from legacy systems.

Figure 5: An Overview of Data Ingestion

Normalizers are used because they need the data to be standardized in a unified structure. They deal with the
discrepancies in the data format (the date format, the numeric representation, and the unit difference) and then
convert it into a common schema based on the framework's data model. For example, one record keeper may have
the date in a different format than another (MM/DD/YYYY vs. YYYY-MM-DD) and would have normalizers convert
all of these dates into a single agreed-upon format.Structured and semi-structured data formats such as CSV, JSON,
or XML are being parsed. The parser's role is to pick up the relevant information, remove the unwanted fields, and
transform it into a vanilla structure format. Specifically, headers often appear in CSV files and may need to be parsed
more clearly in JSON and XML formats to obtain nested elements. The parser guarantees acceptable data for the
following validation and cleansing steps.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

80

Validation and Cleansing Engine

Validation and Cleansing Engine ensures that the ingested data is in accordance with certain quality standards and
goes for further processing or aggregation. It includes a set of rules and dynamic logic that it applies to search for
errors, inconsistencies, and missing values. This engine is indispensable to financial data integrity because a false
statement has very serious and negative effects on regulatory compliance and financial reporting.Static validation
checks, which are pre-set rules, can be pre-defined and called at the time of the framework's design. These rules
aim to check whether the given date range is incorrect, the data type mismatch or the value lies outside the
expected range. For instance, in this example, if the transaction date is in the future or it fails to find a positive value
in a field that should only contain positive values, it would be flagged as an error.

The dynamic validation logic is good because it can change the data pattern without affecting the validation logic.
It uses algorithms that detect anomalies or patterns that do not align with typical behavior. For instance, machine
learning models can mark suspicious transactions potentially in the financial area based on past behaviors. With
this, the system can adapt and detect issues not considered during the rule definition time.Corrections and removals
were referred to as cleansing. For example, if the data type is missing or null, values can be filled with default values
or tossed away depending on business rules. Another issue dealt with in cleansing is duplication, where redundant
records are found and eliminated. It can remove data that may be contaminated or inaccurate so that only accurate,
complete, and reliable data can move on to the next steps in the processing.

Quality Monitoring Dashboard

A quality monitoring dashboard is crucial to provide business users with current information on the data
aggregation quality. Key metrics from many data quality scores, validation exceptions, and status of resolution
efforts on this dashboard. With data health visualized, business users can choose what is best, see how things are
going, quickly put process issues behind them, and stay compliant with internal data standards.The data quality
score aggregates data accuracy, completeness, consistency, and timeliness. It quickly assesses how well the data
follows the set quality standards. A good score shows the data is reliable, while a bad score means significant
problems need rectifying.

On the dashboard, exceptions and alerts display which records have failed validation checks. Each exception has a
severity level associated with it (critical, high, medium, low), and the issue is detailed very well. Suppose this
transaction's account number is invalid. The system will tag it with an error and let it know what kind of error it is.It
also records SLA resolution (Service Level Agreements) to fix data quality issues within the set SLA time. This
framework enables the organization to accomplish regulatory reporting of schedule and no financial penalty
through resolution time monitoring. The dashboard is configurable so that different users (data stewards and
compliance officers) can see relevant metrics based on their roles.

Governance and Rule Management Layer

The Governance and Rule Management Layer guarantees that data quality rules are installed, provided for, and
revised throughout time. This layer is important for providing responsibility, traceability, and transparency in data
quality assurance. Additionally, it assists the organization in being compliant with regulatory and compliance
standards by having an auditing trail of the changes in the rules and the quality of the data decisions made.Data
quality rules regarding the end of the guarantee or of the guarantee, as well as rules for the reconciliation of
consumption data, are owned in terms of who is responsible for their creation, approval, and maintenance. This
helps enforce accountability, and rules must match business needs and compliance requirements (Rezaee, 2017).

Approval workflow guarantees that any changes to the data quality rules are being reviewed and approved
correctly. In this workflow, several stakeholders, such as data engineers, business analysts, and compliance officers,
may develop rules that are robust, correct, and conform to industry standards.Version control is applied to track
changes in data quality rules over time. This is important in a dynamic environment where regulations, business
requirements, and input/output format change (Donati et al., 2020). Organizations that take care of version control
have the guarantee that if the need arises, they can revert to any previous version of rules and keep a record of

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

81

how the rules have been changed for audit.

Scalability Considerations

A key consideration in the design of any modern data quality framework is scalability. As financial data volume and
complexity grow, the system must be able to handle increased load with high performance. This is how Cloud Neil
must provide horizontal scaling, flexibility, and high availability.The framework has been cloud-native and deployed
using platforms such as Kubernetes to ensure it can scale over multiple nodes for large volumes of data from
different record keepers. To scale the data quality framework as demand increases, Kubernetes takes care of the
deployment, scaling, and orchestration of containerized applications.

Figure 6: Cloud-native data quality framework with Kubernetes scalability and load balancing

The framework can be horizontally scaled to have more computing resources as needed. As data volume increases,
more servers can be provisioned to accommodate the extra load, ensuring that the system remains responsive and
cost-effective. This scaling strategy is particularly useful for processing large datasets or handling sudden spikes in
data traffic.Load balance distributes data evenly over the available resources so that bottlenecks do not occur and
perform at their system's very best. Due to this, load balancers can direct incoming data requests to the targeted
server depending on the current load situation so that no node gets overloaded or the system stays under any
conditions.These components act together as a framework to meet the needs of a growing data volume with the
same level of quality and performance (Taleb et al., 2021).

Integration with Financial Platforms and APIs

To integrate scalable data quality frameworks into financial platforms, seamless connectivity with many data
sources, most notably record keeper systems, requires many technologies and standards. Approaches for this
include robust integration techniques, good middleware tools, and very stringent data security procedures
(Gharaibeh et al., 2017). The second part of this chapter discusses how to integrate as a Financial Platform or API,
including topics such as API use, establishment of Middleware where legacy systems are present, and Data Security
protocols.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

82

Seamless API Connectivity and Data Exchange

APIs have become the main data change tool between recrecord-keepingstems and other financial systems in
modern financial ecosystems. RESTful APIs (Representational State Transfer) are the most commonly used method
for such integrations. Since they are also simple, scalable, and stateless, these APIs are the preferred choice for
financial services, as speed and reliability are core to what they do. REST APIs communicate through standard HTTP
methods such as GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE for easy integration with web-based services.Financial platforms that
aggregate record keepers use RESTful APIs to obtain data from custodians and other record keepers, such as asset
valuations, transaction histories, and portfolio allocations (Mudambo, 2021). These real-time APIs support actual-
time reporting and analysis, which is vital for proper and prompt financial decision-making.

Webhooks are another tool and a must-have for this integration landscape. These are user-defined HTTP callbacks
triggered within the record keeper system through particular events. They allow systems to be notified of any real-
time actions, such as when account balances change or transaction settlements occur, so that financial platform
data can be updated in real-time and not through constant polling. The data would stay fresh and synchronized,
and latency would be minimized.APIs and Webhooks provide a general and scalable approach to integrating
generally diverse financial data systems. This enables efficient data aggregative to have clear and up-to-date
information among all the participants in the ecosystem, thus allowing better decisions, compliance, and reporting.

Middleware Considerations for Legacy Systems

While many organizations’

business processes are now powered by modern financial platforms that depend upon

APIs for integration, many organizations’ records

-keeping systems remain legacy systems that do not inherently

support API-based data exchange. To bring these older systems onto a scalable data quality framework, middleware
tools will be used to bridge the gap between legacy systems and modern financial platforms.Integration adapters
are one of the main middleware solutions for integrating the systems developed some time ago. These adapters
are agents that translate and convert data formats and protocols between the legacy systems and current APIs
(Schwichtenberg et al., 2017). When a system relies on flat files as a legacy system (CSV, XML, or proprietary), it can
have an integration adapter convert data into formats that modern API-driven ones can process to prevent that
data from passing between the two.

Integrating these projects involves critical middleware tools like message queues like Apache Kafka. Real-time data
streaming and fault-tolerant transmission of messages (Kafka) deal with data from different systems, thus ensuring
that the messages (in this case, financial data) are sent. Organizations can use Kafka or similar technologies to
ensure that the data from legacy systems is not lost and processed in an organized, consistent manner (Wang et al.,
2021). Kafka also has high throughput and low latency processing, suitable for environments requiring immediate
data delivery and high reliability.An additional data transformation bridge is needed if it modifies or normalizes data
before it gets sent to other systems. Transformation rules, such as data type conversions, format standardization,
or aggregation processes, are applied to these bridges to make legacy data conform

to a newer system’s format

and structure. Transformation bridges are not only used to ensure that data is compatible between different
systems and consistent data quality standards before integrating data into the financial platform.

Data Security and Encryption Standards

it is important to note that financial data is sensitive when integrating record-keeper aggregation systems;
therefore, critical components are data security and encryption. Financial institutions are responsible for ensuring
that all data exchanged in any system is not tampered with or breached by anyone other than authorized personnel.
This section looks at the security aspect of data transmission and storage.The underlying Security Protocol is
Transport Layer Security (TLS). In a nutshell, TLS ensures data transmission cannot be eavesdropped on, unlike it
can with regular HTTP. TLS guarantees that API calls, Webhook notifications, and other data will be transmitted
securely for financial platforms. Since attackers can exploit it, ensuring proper configuration and that our systems
use the latest protocol version makes sense.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

83

Figure 7: An Overview of Data Security & Encryption Process Flow for Financial Systems

Additionally, it is widely used to secure APIs via token authentication. Such authentication has a token for each
session and is used to authenticate requests to the API. Token-based authentication offers an extra security feature
to check whether a user or system has access to sensitive financial data. OAuth and JSON Web Tokens (JWT) are
common, secure, stateless implementations of authentication that work well with modern financial ecosystems.It
is also important to encrypt financial data at Rest. Though attackers can now access storage systems, encryption
makes sure that the data does not become readable without the decryption keys. Strong encryption standards like
AES-256 (Advanced Encryption Standard), which are used in financial platforms, are typically implemented to
encrypt data stored in the database and file system. Encryption at Rest is the mechanism by which sensitive
information is encrypted at Rest, which means it is protected from the moment it is ingested through storage and
retrieval.

Apart from the technical aspects, it is also important to control who can access the encrypted data and permit them
to access that API. The file has gone over role-based access control (RBAC), which should restrict authorized
personnel or systems access to certain datasets and actions with the platform. Strong access controls and minimized
internal breaching and unapproved data access further enhance data security.

Successful Case Study: Multi-Manager Pension Platform

Problem Statement and Data Landscape

However, a fictional but real example of a Multi-Manager Pension Platform (MMPP) is where an organization
aggregates retirement and pension data from 12 custodians. These clients are custodians, managing individual
pension accounts of clients, and can include a small number of large global custodians, small regional firms, and
some newer fintech-driven platforms. File reports (Flat files such as CSV, Excel) to databases (structured) API) having
varying levels of consistency in data and format.The problem is managing the data differential between these
custodians since everyone records the same transactions, asset holdings, liabilities, and cash flows differently. The
inconsistencies result in difficult consolidation, reconciliation, and the creation of accurate, timely reports for
internal stakeholders, regulatory compliance, and client needs. Most of the time, reconciliation errors, reporting
delays, and a lack of trust in data integrity cause delays in the decision-making process (Wehrle et al., 2022).

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

84

The soaring need for real-time evaluations and the addition of complex reporting requirements attributed to
regulatory changes made it difficult for MMPP to achieve its reporting processes promptly and correctly. These
inefficiencies and huge risk exposure stemmed from manual interventions, errors, and data aggregation.To
overcome these difficulties, MMPP chose to automate a scalable data quality framework that would standardize
and improve the quality of the aggregated data from the many record keepers. Data consistency was to be ensured,
reconciliation processes improved, and stakeholders were supplied with timely and accurate reports.

Framework Implementation Strategy

The data quality framework implementation strategy was rolled out over a phased approach with minimal
disruption to operations. Several components comprised the ingestion layer, validation engine, and quality
monitoring dashboard. Each component was designed to tackle particular challenges that MMPP faces when
managing data from any number of custodians.

•

Ingestion Layer:

The first phase consisted of creating a data ingestion layer to ingest data from different

custodians in different formats. The head of the layer used a collection of custom connectors and
transformation scripts to clean up the data flooding from disparate 'sources' (CSV, XML, JSON, APIs) into a
common schema. ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools like Apache NiFi allowed MMPP to automate the data
extraction and transformation process so that data could be formatted for subsequent analysis
(Singu,2022).

•

Validation Engine:

In the second phase, automated data validation was added, running against given rules

as they were written. This engine had a series of data integrity checks applied to ensure the accuracy,
completeness, consistency, and timeliness of the data that was being aggregated. Specific data peculiarities
for each custodian were considered in each custodian's custom validation rules. One of the benefits of using
this engine was that it also automated reconciliation processes such that discrepancies with different data
sources could be detected almost instantaneously. The failed validation data was flagged for manual review
or auto-corrected with pre-defined business rules.

•

Quality Monitoring Dashboard:

The last piece was to develop a quality monitoring dashboard that gave

operational teams and business users real-time information about the state of their data. It focused on real-
time quality metrics such as data completeness, validation success rates, and reconciliation status. A
dashboard included exception alerts and the ability to drill down into problem areas for teams to resolve
data quality issues quickly (Thumburu,2021). The visualizations on the dashboard managed stakeholder
expectations and gave the status of quality initiatives the level of progress it desired.
After implementing this scalable framework, MMPP could automate much of data aggregation, validation,

and reconciliation, increasing operational efficiency and data accuracy. With this in place, the organization could
scale by adding more custodians without greatly increasing the complexity of its data operations.

Table 2: Key Components and Benefits of Data Quality Framework Implementation

Phase

Component

Key Features

Benefit/Outcome

Data Ingestion

Ingestion Layer

Ingests data from multiple custodians
(CSV, XML, JSON, APIs). Custom
connectors and transformation scripts.
Automated ETL process.

Ensures seamless data flow into a
common schema for easy analysis
and processing.

Data Validation

Validation
Engine

Automated data validation against
predefined rules. Checks data integrity,
completeness, and timeliness. Custom
rules for each custodian.

Ensures high-quality data,
automates reconciliation, and flags
discrepancies for review or auto-
correction.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

85

Phase

Component

Key Features

Benefit/Outcome

Monitoring

Quality
Monitoring
Dashboard

Real-time tracking of data quality
metrics: completeness, validation
success, and reconciliation status.
Exception alerts and drill-down features.

Provides transparency and allows
quick resolution of data quality
issues to maintain operational
efficiency.

Implementation

Phased
Approach

Rolled out in stages to minimize
operational disruption. Integrated with
business rules and existing systems.

Minimizes risk and ensures smooth
adoption, integrating the data
quality strategy seamlessly into
operations.

Results: Improved Data Consistency and Timeliness

The framework implementation was very successful. After the first six months of using the system, MMPP reported
reduced reconciliation errors by 75%. However, before the implementation, a reconciliation error was a significant
problem, requiring manual intervention and delay. Automated validation and reconciliation were introduced to
drastically reduce these errors and force the team to concentrate more on strategic tasks rather than hardening
data daily.Besides faster monthly reporting time (60%), the implementation of the framework also increased
accuracy. The data that took several days to clean, validate, and consolidate had become available for reporting in
hours (Chastin et al., 2018). This was especially critical for the reduction in time, which came on the heels of the
growing regulatory demands for quicker financial reporting and the platform's demands for real-time analysis for
its stakeholders.

Additionally, data became consistent across the platform, and a real-time quality monitoring dashboard was
available to the platform's internal stakeholders almost immediately. This also empowered them to act quickly
based on discrepancies in the data to continue building trust in the data.In this context, the framework enabled
MMPP to scale without limit, as custodians were added to the platform. They ensured that no complex
customizations were required to overcome the lack of integration with new data sources, and the automated data
ingestion layer handled the integration.

Lessons Learned

The process had its fair share of lessons learned while implementing the framework. Change management of MMPP
was one of the biggest challenges they had to face. Of course, there was early resistance to adopting this new data
quality framework, which meant adopting new ways of working with the team. The platform solved this problem
by investing in a great training program for those handling the operations to understand how the new system could
be used.The implementation was dependent on the operations teams' training. Initially, the employees did not
know the validation rules, quality dashboard, or how to resolve flagged issues. However, after training sessions
designed to test the team's grasp of the new system and then stick it out until the transition went smoothly, the
team made the change with no significant side effects.

They pay attention to the principle of stakeholder buy-in. At this early stage, it also became apparent that the
framework would fail without support from senior management and key business units. MMPP secured the
necessary support for the full-scale deployment by involving stakeholders in the design and implementation phases
and showing quick wins (reduced reconciliation errors) early on.It was realized that improvement had to be
continuous. As the platform's data landscape grew and changed, a data quality framework that would evolve was
needed. Validation rules, data normalization processes, and the monitoring dashboard needed to be extended
and/or revised repeatedly by MMPP to accommodate new business requirements.

The MMPP study shows that meaningful gains can be made by intertwining the design of a scalable data quality
framework with the practice of record keeper aggregation. Improvements in data consistency, faster reporting, and
fewer reconciliation errors made the framework a key feature of the platform's long-term success. As with any

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

86

change management and training, the platform made the need for stakeholder engagement and the conclusion of
the need for change management much clearer (Naeem, M. (2020).

Best Practices for Implementing Data Quality Frameworks

In a financial ecosystem, it is imperative to have a scalable data quality framework so that all the heterogeneous
record keepers produce accurate, consistent, and timely data aggregation. This implementation is a success or
failure as a function of how well the framework is implemented, monitored, and tuned. I will share below the best
practices regarding rolling a data quality framework into such an environment.

Start with a Data Quality Assessment

Any data quality framework is based on a comprehensive data quality assessment. A baseline study is expected to
be performed before the full-scale deployment of the data quality management system to determine the current
state of data quality as it touches all systems. Thus, this assessment appears aimed at identifying data gaps,
discrepancies, and inefficiencies that prevent data aggregation and reporting.

Data profiling is the first step in a data quality assessment, attempting to understand an organization's data
structure, relations, and formats. This can clearly show data consistency, completeness, and integrity. Furthermore,
gap analysis should be performed to show which specific places the quality of data is not up to organizational
standards or regulatory requirements (Austin et al., 2016). It compares the current state of data with industry
standards, best practices, and internal objectives. Organizations can determine an improvement roadmap for data
quality. Regarding the financial reporting process, high-impact issues such as data duplication, missing value, and
inconsistent format should be prioritized. A solid baseline allows organizations to identify corrective measures and
follow up on them with clear successes over time.

Prioritize Business-Critical Data Flows

Prioritizing the most business-critical data flows is a key best practice in implementing such a data quality
framework. Not all data is equally important to an organization's operations or compliance requirements.
Prioritization, therefore, enables more efficient resource and effort spending to maintain data quality.Data quality
enhancement should be the first process applied to areas such as fee billing, client reporting, and risk dashboards
on financial platforms (Shi et al., 2015). These areas impact customer satisfaction and involve legal compliance and
company financial health. In addition, shoddy billing data may lead to significant revenue losses, break customers'
trust, and attract regulators' attention. Infrequent or inappropriate reporting to clients by an Advisor may provoke
investor dissatisfaction or breach industry rules promulgated as required by the SEC or FINRA.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

87

Figure 8: The Role Of The Sec And Finra

Risk dashboards are also important for the risk management team and must be prioritized. They rely on very high-
quality live data to assess exposure and make informed decisions. Bad data will likely result in an incorrect risk
assessment that can prove ill-founded to the firm's financial strategy.When an organization addresses risky areas
first and provides that there are data flows, they can fix as soon as possible (immediately), it focuses on business-
critical areas and ensures that the most important data flows are put under control. This approach is not just a good
way of maximizing operational efficiency. It also limits the chance of drastic financial and reputation losses.

Cross-Functional Collaboration

Collecting a framework that relies on the collaborative efforts of several departments may appear to be a simple
concept, yet it often fails. Working together is essential, and that is why it is really important to create a cross-
functional team with data engineers, business analysts, compliance officers, and IT staff (Chavan, 2022). These
function at different levels, and each is critical for guaranteeing that the business requires technical capability and
that the data quality framework coordinates.The technical parts required by frameworks are built and maintained
in the data pipelines, which are the data framework's building blocks of care. Data engineers are tasked with
creating the rules for validation and automating data transformation. They know how to make data pass through
the system with the required quality, according to what the organization has set.

Business analysts bring domain knowledge. They have experience in knowing how data quality relates to the
business productively and can help learn the framework definition required in terms of the business rules and KPIs
to be followed. For example, business analysts can determine what databases are necessary to perform customer
segmentation or reporting and need perfect accuracy.Fulfilling this role, compliance officers ensure that the data
quality framework complies with applicable regulations and standards. It is important that they are involved to
make certain that it also meets the requirements for data privacy and security, especially in the finance domain,
where strict compliance with laws like GDPR and Sarbanes Oxley is a must.

The technical infrastructure supporting the data quality framework has to be maintained, especially by IT staff,
including system administrators and database managers. They ensure the system runs uninterruptedly because
they don't want it to interfere with business and disrupt systems, databases, and APIs.By enabling the collaboration

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

88

of these stakeholders, organizations can advance towards an organized and efficient way to uphold data quality
once it is technically sound and aligned with the business objectives.

Continuous Monitoring and Feedback Loops

In reality, data quality management is not a one-time project but rather an ongoing process. Any data quality
framework depends on continuous monitoring and feedback loops. Organizations that continuously monitor data
quality can detect problems in real-time and take appropriate action before they impact business
operations.Automated regression testing is one of the most effective tools for continuous monitoring. It can be
built to check automatically for data inconsistency or error between every update or integration on the organization
level. Automated regression testing can help teams identify when data has been mismatched, when no data is
available, or when information is outdated.

Figure 9: Continuous Monitoring and Feedback Loops for Data Quality Management

Machine learning or statistical models for anomaly detection can enable the tools to go further in identifying
unusual patterns or new data in the data set. They can identify things that may seem to not be a big deal now but
could lead to long-term risks

—

data deterioration slowly, shifts in the data quality due to changes in the source

systems, etc.The other is feedback loops that allow teams to iterate on and perfect data quality standards over time
(López et al., 2021). The lessons learned can be fed back into the framework to improve the rules and processes,
and if data issues are found as they are, they are corrected and available to feed back into the framework. Feedback
from the last users, such as business analysts or compliance officers, will help it determine where to add changes
to the data quality framework.Organizations can maintain high-quality data across their platforms by building
continuous monitoring and feedback loops, enabling proactive issue resolution and ongoing optimization.

Ethical and Legal Implications

In the domain of fast-changing financial markets, the data quality framework must include both operational
efficiency and ethical and legal aspects.

Compliance with Regulatory Mandates

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

89

Regulatory compliance is the backbone of any financial platform, particularly regarding data accuracy, how long it
is kept, and auditability (Singh, 2024). Financial services are highly regulated across multiple jurisdictions, and
authorities such as the SEC, GDPR of the EU, and FINRA are extremely strict on data management. The problem is
addressing accurate and sustained proper time for financial data according to these specified regulatory
requirements.

This will lead to a little confused GDPR for the more general breach control policies for personal data (for example,
if personal data as such has been complied with directly or on behalf of a data subject has been 'purposely gathered'
for purposes identified) to one general single requirement. All organizations must be able to keep accurate date
records and to delete any personal data from their records without delay. Data validity is also guaranteed to be in
line with the set rules when validated and allows data to remain compliant with the retention policies (Gao et al.,
2016). A framework that can track and log all updates in data to achieve the audibility of data lineage and changes
fits the compliance requirement under regulations like SEC Rule 17a-4, which mandates that certain records are to
be kept for a minimum of six years.

Data should be automatically reported or alerted in cases of abrupt, unexpected, or inaccurate expiration so that
one is not fined for violating regulation and if one ever needs to verify data compliance at any moment. If regulatory
compliance checks are inserted within the framework so that such compliance is followed by data handling only,
they decrease the probability of a financial institution's regulatory violation.

Table 3: Analysis of Ethical and Legal Implications in Financial Data Quality Management

Key Aspect

Compliance &

Regulation

Data Stewardship

Bias & Data

Exclusion Risks

Risk Mitigation

Strategies

Regulatory
Compliance

Ensures data accuracy,
auditability, and
retention based on
regulations like SEC and
GDPR.

Framework must comply
with data retention and
privacy laws.

Risks of bias and
exclusion of valid
data due to
cleansing rules.

Implement automated
checks, audit
processes, and data
expiration alerts.

Legal
Frameworks

SEC Rule 17a-4
mandates record
retention for 6 years,
GDPR requires precise
personal data handling.

Data must be handled
ethically to protect client
confidentiality and
privacy, including GDPR
compliance.

Systematic bias
can occur if
cleansing rules
exclude or modify
valid data.

Use flexible, context-
sensitive rules for
diverse data types and
frequent manual
checks.

Data Ownership
& Responsibility

Organizations are
accountable for
maintaining compliant
data and protecting
client information.

Clear accountability at
each stage of data
lifecycle, ensuring
stewardship.

Bias can emerge
from narrow data
collection, leading
to incomplete
analysis.

Continuous monitoring
and feedback loops to
adapt cleansing
processes and avoid
data bias.

Data Validation
& Accuracy

Regular validation of
data ensures ongoing
compliance and
prevents violations.

Data stewards ensure
data undergoes routine
checks and cleaning
processes.

Invalid exclusion of
data can skew
decision-making
and strategies.

Set up monitoring
mechanisms for
validation, audits, and
data reconciliation.

Ethical
Stewardship

Organizations must
ensure that data is
handled transparently
and ethically.

Ethical responsibility to
maintain high-quality,
non-biased data.

Data exclusion or
incorrect
validation can lead
to poor decision-
making.

Build robust processes
for continuous quality
assurance and bias
reduction.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

90

Responsibility and Data Stewardship

The financial data are bound by the ethics of responsibility of the entities that own them. Data stewardship is
practice concerns before and after data governance and care, as well as accountable and organized data for all
stakeholders (clients, regulators, business partners) so that those data are used responsibly, ethically, and for all
benefit (Karwa, 2024). If that dataset is imprecise, the consequences of its impacts on clients' actions, reporting to
industry regulators, and the practice of intra-company business strategies may be wide collateral risks in companies'
finance datasets.

The framework's data stewardship model should be suitable and cover all data types that any concerned
organization governs. It should show data-driven roles and who owns data quality at different stages of a data
lifecycle (ingest, store, report), where keeping provided data is a business process. Data stewards are responsible
for ensuring that their data undergoes daily routine checks. Data cleaning processes must also be carried out, and
the process followed should be appropriate enough to address human and machine errors that would likely result
in wrong decisions.

The financial institutions' ethical responsibility is to ensure there is no false or inaccurate data being held by them.
If any of these sectors, the most popular of which are asset management or retirement planning, are to avoid such
financial losses, the data used in terms are absolutely precise. As a result, the framework requires strong
mechanisms of validation and corrections so that faults are found as soon as possible. Moreover, data stewardship
entails that personal client data does not violate the laws in place regarding data confidentiality and privacy

—

including those stipulated by GDPR that constrain client data processing to be in the points of legal, fair, and
transparent means of doing so.

Failure to abide by these data stewardship principles may impair the elaborate and trustful relationship between a
financial institution and a respective customer, ultimately to the extent of material corporate harm in finance and
corporate reputation. To offer compliance with the ethical stewardship standards and have the data handled
responsibly throughout its lifecycle. Any framework needs to describe the regularly used monitoring mechanisms
that must audit the practices of handling data to perform audits on these practices to warrant the assertions made
around the ethical stewardship standards of data.

Bias and Data Exclusion Risks

The risk of letting biases and inadvertent exclusion of valid data was the most serious ethical war one could raise
about the implementation of the data quality framework. To avoid systematic bias in the data, data structures for
recording and data providers can vary significantly, leading to aggregation bias. Imagine that this happens if
cleansing or normalization rules steer disproportionally many observations of specific data types (or do not
recognize enough data structures required for certain categories of customers or products).Consider a cleansing
rule to standardize numeric fields, for instance, that cleanses valid but strange (no standardized) data, which is
acceptable to certain clients as meaning such as nonstandard currencies or investment instruments. The rule of
banishing most data will also be deemed invalid data that can be meaningful, unpredictable, and associated with
the business. However, these exclusions may mean choosing decisions that are not typical to the whole dataset.
They could raise the risk of not including some critical information that can influence the guidance of investment
strategies or risk assessments.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

91

Figure 10: Reinforcing data bias in crisis information management

These risks should be minimized in the framework so that these processes involve full quality assurance processes,
with a manual and automated review of the data for finalization to the view of the report and the decision-making
process. The framework should also have flexible, context-sensitive rule applications useful for different data types
and uses. It can continuously learn the data cleansing rules to refine them further to minimize the risk of losing valid
data.Data bias can be applied to issues other than technical ones. The data-gathering process must include the
variety of clients they have. The data that financial institutions are collecting shouldn't be so narrow as to allow
such data to support the already existing biases in the decision-making process. In addition, it could mean filing an
alternative data source to increase inclusion and diminish the concept of 'skewness.

Financial data aggregation takes an ethical and legal toll that should be dealt with all-encompassing. Thus, the
financial platforms need to communicate and follow through regulations from regulatory bodies and data
stewardship attributable to ethics. A data quality framework that reduces bias risks and is scalable to counter
contamination away from corruption and exclusion in organizations will provide financial institutions with a robust
accountability structure that guarantees accurate, inclusive, and compliant data management practice. With the
increase of trust in the clients and law firm attorneys, there are fewer probabilities of legal and financial
repercussions.

Future Trends in Financial Data Quality Management

As the financial services industry evolves into the future, emerging trends in data quality management play a role
in establishing its future. As data has become crucial for decisions, regulatory compliance, and operational
efficiency, there has been an increased demand for a framework that guarantees the technical integrity and quality
of the financial dataset.

AI and ML in Data Quality Assessment

It has also become necessary to employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) to improve data
quality assessment processes. These technologies empower financial platforms to automatically detect patterns,
spot anomalies, and foresee errors in datasets, thereby eliminating the need for manual involvement in validation
and error reforming across your platform.The combination of real-time data analysis of a huge number of data and
detection of inconsistencies and discrepancies that are not so apparent when viewed with rule-based systems
allows data quality tools to run in the hands of AI (Zhang et al., 2020). To use data quality as a predictor, machine
learning algorithms can train data on historical records, learn the patterns on which data quality issues occur, and
ultimately develop predictive models to forecast where data problems might occur in the future. Such a proactive

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

92

approach lets financial institutions deal with issues in advance so the inconvenience does not hamper their
operation.

Outlier detection is one of AI and ML's practice applications in data quality management. Datasets can be analyzed
for unusual values or patterns, and such analysis can also be done using machine learning models. Take the example
of a financial transaction dataset that could be used by ML Algorithms to identify transactions that are much higher
or lower than typical patterns, which may indicate fraud or data entry errors. Thus, these technologies can
automatically flag such outliers to prevent costly errors or fraud.AI and ML-based predictive error models forecast
the likelihood of data quality problems in specific data sets or systems. These models can use many such variables
to predict whether errors will be likely to be made and when. This predictive capability allows organizations to solve
unavoidable issues instead of running from the inevitable ones by taking preventive measures and taking advantage
of the efficiency of resource allocations (Gupta et al., 2020).

Blockchain for Data Lineage and Auditability

More and more companies are now interested in what blockchain technology can bring for a line of data or
suitability in financial data management. A blockchain is a decentralized and immutable ledger that stores
transactional information on multiple computers, wherein no one can alter or tamper with the data without it being
detected. On the other hand, blockchain can be used as a secure, tamper-proof, transparent audit trail for all entries
and modifications of financial data in financial data management.The ability of blockchain to guarantee the integrity
of the data is one of the most important advantages of applying blockchain for financial data quality management.
Blockchain's decentralization eliminates the risks of failure points of failure, and its immutable records make the
data nearly impossible to change without leaving a trace made by a criminally inclined actor. In the financial
industry, data integrity is particularly important for regulatory compliance and stakeholders' trust, and this level of
security is particularly important.

Blockchain can enhance data lineage tracking, crucial to tracking how financial data flows from one System and
Record keeper to another. Blockchain can provide an audit trail of the growth over time of data movement, from
the birth of data to its use and aggregation. This transparency facilitates tracing financial organizations' data to
where it originated, confirming its authenticity and quality.Blockchain can simplify audits by providing auditors with
real-time and immutable records of all data changes. Manual checks and reconciliation in traditional auditory
processes are very time-consuming and prone to errors. Through blockchain, auditors have easy access to the
entire, verifiable history of changes to data, lowering fraud risk and speeding up the audit.

Regulatory Technology (RegTech) Enhancements

RegTech is a rapidly emerging space that applies technology to aid financial organizations' compliance with complex
regulatory requirements. While financial regulations are evolving and becoming increasingly stringent, RegTech is
becoming all the more important in that organizations are able to maintain data quality within regulated
limits.Automated compliance reporting is one of the key areas for improving data quality management where
RegTech becomes involved. RegTech tools are used by more financial platforms to automatically create compliance
reports that meet the requirements defined by the regulator, such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Using these tools means they can read from many systems, apply the
relevant regulatory rules, and generate reports with minimal work, eliminating the likelihood of errors and delays
in meeting deadlines for compliance.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

93

Figure 11: An Overview of Various RegTech Solutions

Real-time monitoring and data validation of such solutions also enable financial institutions to swiftly spot and
address any potential compliance problems. Integrating automated checks during data ingestion and processing
can include annotation and flag any discrepancy or deviation that may affect the data quality or regulatory
conformance (Redyuk et al., 2021). For example, suppose a includes errors that might lead to incorrect financial
reporting or rule breaches. In that case, the RegTech system raises an alarm of immediate action by key
stakeholders, ensuring immediate remediation.RegTech helps in data quality by enforcing that the data governance
framework aligns with regulatory requirements. Such tools enable organizations to choose a range of processes to
put into standardized data validation processes, access control, and auditing to assure adherence to legal and
regulatory standards. RegTech will remain relevant in helping financial institutions keep data quality and avoid high
risks of noncompliance in more complex regulatory environments.

AI, blockchain, and RegTech are shaping the future of financial data quality management. AI and ML enable more
proactive, efficient data quality assessments, and blockchain is used to do it securely and transparently. Tools
associated with RegTech are automating and enhancing real-time data validation and doing compliance reporting,
in other words, keeping your organization ahead of regulatory requirements. With this technology evolving, they
will have a major role in enhancing the scale, dependability, and correctness of monetary information, which will
finally bring more reliance and profitability to the monetary benefits business.

CONCLUSION

The financial services industry is rebuilding unstoppably on increasing data aggregation across different record
keepers. Consolidating data from multiple custodians is no easy task, and there are a number of sticky problems
financial platforms need to resolve regarding data consistency, quality, and accuracy. As explained in the article, in
such a technological disparity landscape and complex regulatory environment, scalable data quality frameworks
are vital in addressing these challenges.From this discussion, the key takeaway is that with financial data
aggregation, the key things that need to be added to a framework are robust and scalable. For this framework to
be created, there needs to be a few foundational principles that go into the design, such as modular architecture,
which provides flexibility, real-time data validation, and full monitoring through completely comprehensive
dashboards. These principles are necessary to improve data quality from heterogeneous record keepers so that
financial institutions can trust the same valid, accurate, and timely data to underpin informed decision-making,

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

94

regulatory compliance, and operational efficiency.

The proposed framework also provides a blueprint for future data management in the financial space at a time
when the immediate objectives of the financial platforms are met. Using the latest technologies such as AI, machine
learning (ML), Blockchain, and regulatory technology (RegTech), the framework prevents the framework forms of
growth and demands for faster and more reliable data aggregation. Blockchain is important for making data
immutable, accountable, and transparent and for the ability to audit the data. At the same time, AI and ML promise
a lot concerning running in real-time and identifying patterns and anomalies. Also, RegTech automates the reporting
and data validation process and enhances compliance by helping financial institutions stay ahead of regulatory
changes.Such a framework must be implemented to address several operational and strategic challenges. Profiling
and gap analysis are the first steps toward assessing the current state of the data quality of any organization. This
initial assessment will be a baseline for improvements to be measured and measured over time. Once it has the
framework, it is time to focus on business-critical data flows like client reporting, risk analytics, and compliance
dashboards, change how data is used, and help those flows implement their WMQ first.

Regarding operational best practices, teamwork at a cross-functional level is crucial. The data quality framework is
meant to be deliverable from data engineers, business analysts, compliance officers, and the IT teams, so it is
important that what is being provided resonates with business needs and meets regulatory requirements.
Continuous monitoring and feedback loops are needed to keep the framework responsive to changes in the practice
of businesses, source of data, and regulatory environment.Ethical and legal considerations are also key in
successfully scaling a data quality framework. Financial data is inherently sensitive, so compliance with regulatory
standards such as GDPR, SEC, and FINRA is non-negotiable. The framework should include mechanisms for data
stewardship to ensure that the data is well handled from its creation to its ultimate discard. When operationalizing
fairness and transparency in financial institutions, data processing should be done without biases, and all such
relevant data should be included in the aggregation process.

With such advancements in the future, financial data quality management is about to take off in better ways. AI
and ML will still lead to enhanced ability of the data quality assessments in predictive and real-time anomaly
detection. Blockchain will help build additional layers of security and soundness in the auditing at hand, making it
easier to verify data lineage and achieve auditability. At the same time, RegTech will gradually mature to provide
more sophisticated tools for compliance automation and data validation to enable financial institutions to handle
data quality with greater ease and accuracy.Adopting scalable data quality frameworks in fin-techs is neither a
necessity nor an opportunity but a vital and beneficial need to improve the efficiency and trust of financial
ecosystems. With the help of these frameworks, financial institutions can reduce operational risks of data
aggregation, facilitate a smoother and more efficient process, and meet high expectations of transparency and
accuracy for their data. From the evolving front of financial services, advanced technologies and compliance with
best practices will remain key ingredients for good data quality to be the number one driver of success in the digital
financial landscape.

REFERENCE

1.

Austin, C. C., Brown, S., Fong, N., Humphrey, C., Leahey, A., & Webster, P. (2016). Research data repositories:
review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements.

IASSIST

quarterly

,

39

(4), 24-24.

2.

Bhaskaran, S. V. (2020). Integrating data quality services (dqs) in big data ecosystems: Challenges, best
practices, and opportunities for decision-making.

Journal of Applied Big Data Analytics, Decision-Making, and

Predictive Modelling Systems

,

4

(11), 1-12.

3.

Chastin, S. F., Dontje, M. L., Skelton, D. A., Čukić, I., Shaw, R. J., Gill, J. M. R., ...

& Dall, P. M. (2018). Systematic

comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural
sitting (activPAL).

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

,

15

, 1-12.

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

95

4.

Chavan, A. (2021). Eventual consistency vs. strong consistency: Making the right choice in microservices.
International Journal of Software and Applications, 14(3), 45-56.

https://ijsra.net/content/eventual-

consistency-vs-strong-consistency-making-right-choice-microservices

5.

Chavan, A. (2021). Exploring event-driven architecture in microservices: Patterns, pitfalls, and best practices.
International Journal of Software and Research Analysis.

https://ijsra.net/content/exploring-event-driven-

architecture-microservices-patterns-pitfalls-and-best-practices

6.

Chavan, A. (2022). Importance of identifying and establishing context boundaries while migrating from
monolith to microservices. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Technology, 4, E168.

http://doi.org/10.47363/JEAST/2022(4)E168

7.

Chrysafis, C., Collins, B., Dugas, S., Dunkelberger, J., Ehsan, M., Gray, S., ...&Shraer, A. (2019, June).
Foundationdb record layer: A multi-tenant structured datastore. In

Proceedings of the 2019 International

Conference on Management of Data

(pp. 1787-1802).

8.

Dhanagari, M. R. (2024). MongoDB and data consistency: Bridging the gap between performance and reliability.

Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies, 6

(2), 183-198.

https://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.21

9.

Donati, F., Aguilar-Hernandez, G. A., Sigüenza-Sánchez, C. P., de Koning, A., Rodrigues, J. F., & Tukker, A. (2020).
Modeling the circular economy in environmentally extended input-output tables: Methods, software and case
study.

Resources, conservation and recycling

,

152

, 104508.

10.

Gao, J., Xie, C., & Tao, C. (2016, March). Big data validation and quality assurance--issuses, challenges, and
needs. In

2016 IEEE symposium on service-oriented system engineering (SOSE)

(pp. 433-441). IEEE.

11.

Gharaibeh, A., Salahuddin, M. A., Hussini, S. J., Khreishah, A., Khalil, I., Guizani, M., & Al-Fuqaha, A. (2017).
Smart cities: A survey on data management, security, and enabling technologies.

IEEE Communications

Surveys & Tutorials

,

19

(4), 2456-2501.

12.

Goel, G., &Bhramhabhatt, R. (2024). Dual sourcing strategies.

International Journal of Science and Research

Archive

, 13(2), 2155.

https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.2.2155

13.

Gupta, S., Drave, V. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Baabdullah, A. M., &Ismagilova, E. (2020). Achieving superior
organizational performance via big data predictive analytics: A dynamic capability view.

Industrial Marketing

Management

,

90

, 581-592.

14.

Hume, S., Sarnikar, S., & Noteboom, C. (2020). Enhancing traceability in clinical research data through a
metadata framework.

Methods of Information in Medicine

,

59

(02/03), 075-085.

15.

Jonck, P., & Minnaar, R. (2015). Validating an employer graduate-employability skills questionnaire in the
faculty of management sciences.

education

.

16.

Karwa, K. (2023). AI-powered career coaching: Evaluating feedback tools for design students. Indian Journal
of Economics & Business.

https://www.ashwinanokha.com/ijeb-v22-4-2023.php

17.

Karwa, K. (2024). The future of work for industrial and product designers: Preparing students for AI and
automation trends. Identifying the skills and knowledge that will be critical for future-proofing design careers.

International

Journal

of

Advanced

Research

in

Engineering

and

Technology

,

15

(5).

https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJARET/VOLUME_15_ISSUE_5/IJARET_15_05_011.pdf

18.

Konneru, N. M. K. (2021). Integrating security into CI/CD pipelines: A DevSecOps approach with SAST, DAST,
and SCA tools.

International Journal of Science and Research Archive

. Retrieved from

https://ijsra.net/content/role-notification-scheduling-improving-patient

19.

Krupa Goel. (2023). How Data Analytics Techniques can Optimize Sales Territory Planning. Journal of Computer
Science and Technology Studies, 5(4), 248-264.

https://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2023.5.4.26

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

96

20.

Kumar, A. (2019). The convergence of predictive analytics in driving business intelligence and enhancing
DevOps efficiency. International Journal of Computational Engineering and Management, 6(6), 118-142.
Retrieved from

https://ijcem.in/wp-content/uploads/THE-CONVERGENCE-OF-PREDICTIVE-ANALYTICS-IN-

DRIVING-BUSINESS-INTELLIGENCE-AND-ENHANCING-DEVOPS-EFFICIENCY.pdf

21.

López, L., Bagnato, A., Ahberve, A., & Franch, X. (2021, May). QFL: data-driven feedback loop to manage quality
in agile development. In

2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software

Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS)

(pp. 58-66). IEEE.

22.

Middelkoop, T. (2021). High-resolution data collection for automated fault diagnostics. In

Automated

Diagnostics and Analytics for Buildings

(pp. 271-290). River Publishers.

23.

Mozzherin, D. Y., Myltsev, A. A., & Patterson, D. J. (2017).

“gnparser”: a powerful parser for scientific names

based on Parsing Expression Grammar.

BMC bioinformatics

,

18

, 1-14.

24.

Mudambo, N. A. (2021).

A Data Pipeline Architecture For Classification Of Potential Claimants In Reunification

Of Unclaimed Financial Assets

(Doctoral dissertation, Kca University).

25.

Musembi, I. N. (2019). Effect of post-clearance audit process on trade facilitation in Kenya.

26.

Naeem, M. (2020). Using social networking applications to facilitate change implementation processes:
insights from organizational change stakeholders.

Business Process Management Journal

,

26

(7), 1979-1998.

27.

Nyati, S. (2018). Revolutionizing LTL carrier operations: A comprehensive analysis of an algorithm-driven
pickup and delivery dispatching solution. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 7(2), 1659-1666.
Retrieved from

https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR24203183637

28.

Raju, R. K. (2017). Dynamic memory inference network for natural language inference. International Journal
of Science and Research (IJSR), 6(2).

https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i2/SR24926091431.pdf

29.

Redyuk, S., Kaoudi, Z., Markl, V., & Schelter, S. (2021, March). Automating Data Quality Validation for Dynamic
Data Ingestion. In

EDBT

(pp. 61-72).

30.

Rezaee, Z. (2017).

Business sustainability: Performance, compliance, accountability and integrated reporting

.

Routledge.

31.

Saffady, W. (2021).

Records and information management: fundamentals of professional practice

. Rowman &

Littlefield.

32.

Sardana, J. (2022). Scalable systems for healthcare communication: A design perspective.

International Journal

of Science and Research Archive

.

https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2022.7.2.0253

33.

Sardana, J. (2022). The role of notification scheduling in improving patient outcomes.

International Journal of

Science and Research Archive

. Retrieved from

https://ijsra.net/content/role-notification-scheduling-

improving-patient

34.

Schwichtenberg, S., Gerth, C., & Engels, G. (2017, June). From open API to semantic specifications and code
adapters. In

2017 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)

(pp. 484-491). IEEE.

35.

Shi, C., Jugulum, R., Joyce, H. I., Singh, J., Granese, B., Ramachandran, R., ...& Talburt, J. R. (2015). Improving
financial services data quality

–

a financial company practice.

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

,

6

(2), 98-

110.

36.

Singh, V. (2021). Generative AI in medical diagnostics: Utilizing generative models to create synthetic medical
data for training diagnostic algorithms. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Medical
Technologies.

https://ijcem.in/wp-content/uploads/GENERATIVE-AI-IN-MEDICAL-DIAGNOSTICS-UTILIZING-

GENERATIVE-MODELS-TO-CREATE-SYNTHETIC-MEDICAL-DATA-FOR-TRAINING-DIAGNOSTIC-
ALGORITHMS.pdf

AMERICAN ACADEMIC PUBLISHER

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijdsml

97

37.

Singh, V. (2024). Ethical considerations in deploying AI systems in public domains: Addressing the ethical
challenges of using AI in areas like surveillance and healthcare.

Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics

Education (TURCOMAT)

.

https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/14959

38.

Singu, S. K. (2022). ETL Process Automation: Tools and Techniques.

ESP Journal of Engineering & Technology

Advancements

,

2

(1), 74-85.

39.

Singu, S. K. (2022). ETL Process Automation: Tools and Techniques.

ESP Journal of Engineering & Technology

Advancements

,

2

(1), 74-85.

40.

Taleb, I., Serhani, M. A., Bouhaddioui, C., &Dssouli, R. (2021). Big data quality framework: a holistic approach
to continuous quality management.

Journal of Big Data

,

8

(1), 76.

41.

Thumburu, S. K. R. (2021). Real-Time Data Quality Monitoring and Remediation in EDI.

Advances in Computer

Sciences

,

4

(1).

42.

Wang, G., Chen, L., Dikshit, A., Gustafson, J., Chen, B., Sax, M. J., ...& Rao, J. (2021, June). Consistency and
completeness: Rethinking distributed stream processing in apache kafka. In

Proceedings of the 2021

international conference on management of data

(pp. 2602-2613).

43.

Wehrle, K., Tozzi, V., Braune, S., Roßnagel, F., Dikow, H., Paddock, S., ...& van Hövell, P. (2022). Implementation
of a data control framework to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of high-quality real-world data
(RWD) in the NeuroTransData (NTD) registry.

JAMIA open

,

5

(1), ooac017.

44.

ZarrabiJorshari, F. (2016).

A semantic based framework for software regulatory compliance

(Doctoral

dissertation, University of East London).

45.

Zhang, H., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2020, November). Rule-based Data Quality Intelligent Monitoring System.
In

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

(Vol. 1670, No. 1, p. 012031). IOP Publishing

.