Defined commercial interventions

Services built for decision-critical data - not generic data-quality activity.

DQIntegrity - Data Quality & Integrity - works where missing populations, distorted values, weak controls, fragmented ownership or insufficient evidence create material regulatory, operational or decision exposure.

Service logic

Exposure. Proof. Actionability.

The work is designed to separate downstream symptoms from structural causes, establish what must be proven, and leave behind a stronger control response - not another layer of commentary.

**From Data Integrity Diagnosis to Defensible Outcomes** — The advisory lifecycle: diagnose, trace and prove, design controls, remediate and assure, then sustain.© DQIntegrity.com, July 2026

Core interventions

Four principal service areas.

Diagnostic

Independent Data Quality & Integrity Diagnostic

Define the expected population and decision outcome; trace data through source, movement, transformation and consumption; assess completeness, correctness, ownership, control operation and evidence; prioritise the structural breaks.

Design

Completeness & Correctness Control Design

Specify reconciliations, record counts, control totals, checksums, schema and mapping validation, semantic rules, thresholds, exception handling, ownership and escalation at the right handling points.

Assurance

Continuous Control Monitoring & Remediation Assurance

Move from periodic confidence to automated, risk-based evidence. Test whether controls identify breaks early, quantify decision impact, support remediation and prove sustainable closure.

Leadership

Retained Senior Data Quality & Integrity Advisory

Provide defined recurring senior access for decision review, programme and provider challenge, governance support and continued control improvement - without creating undefined availability or a permanent specialist role.

How an engagement begins

From first discussion to a defensible next action.

This four-step sequence explains what happens after contact. It adds commercial clarity without pre-judging the scale of the problem or forcing a larger programme before the evidence is understood.

How a DQIntegrity engagement begins: Scoping, Evidence, Diagnosis and Decision — **How a DQIntegrity engagement begins** — A principal-led, evidence-led route from initial scoping to agreed priorities and defensible next steps.© DQIntegrity.com, July 2026

Typical entry points

When DQIntegrity is usually brought in.

Recurring downstream defects

The same issue returns in monitoring, reporting or operations, while root cause remains unclear.

Weak proof

Controls exist, but the organisation cannot demonstrate that expected data arrived or remained meaningful.

Fragmented ownership

Source, platform and consuming teams each own a component, but nobody owns the end-to-end integrity question.

Executive pressure

Leadership needs a sharper explanation of what is breaking, where the exposure sits and what credible uplift requires.

How engagements are structured

Three clear routes, agreed around the problem - not a generic resource model.

Focused mandates are led directly by Draz Ivezic, who remains accountable for diagnostic judgement, client communication and final conclusions. Scope, timing and commercial form are confirmed only after the opening Scoping → Evidence → Diagnosis → Decision sequence.

Focused diagnostic

Independent Data Quality & Integrity Diagnostic

A contained, evidence-led assessment of one or more decision-critical data journeys, processes or control environments.

Typical trigger: Regulatory concern, recurring defect, unexplained population gap, migration risk or weak AI/control evidence.
Typical scope: One decision-critical journey, process or control environment, with defined evidence inputs and outputs.
Indicative duration: Often 3–6 weeks, depending on scope, access and evidence availability.
Commercial basis: Defined fixed-scope diagnostic, with agreed deliverables and an optional executive readout.
Decision enabled: Remediate, redesign, escalate, challenge a provider or establish a wider programme.

Control and assurance

Control Design, Remediation & Delivery Assurance

For organisations that understand the problem but need stronger controls, delivery challenge or defensible evidence of closure.

Typical trigger: Known control weakness, remediation commitment, technology change, provider delivery or approaching go-live decision.
Typical scope: Defined control requirements, remediation themes, programme milestones, testing or acceptance criteria.
Indicative duration: Milestone-based or phase-based, aligned to the relevant delivery and assurance points.
Commercial basis: Agreed scope, deliverables and review points - not general implementation resourcing.
Decision enabled: Accept, remediate, mobilise, proceed to go-live or require further evidence.

Retained senior access

Retained Senior Data Quality & Integrity Advisory

Recurring principal-level challenge and decision support without creating a permanent specialist role.

Typical trigger: Leadership needs recurring specialist input across governance, remediation, provider or programme decisions.
Typical scope: Agreed priority themes, scheduled leadership access, document review and decision challenge.
Indicative structure: A limited monthly allocation agreed in advance and reviewed periodically.
Commercial basis: Monthly retainer with defined boundaries; no speculative activity or undefined availability.
Decision enabled: Prioritise action, challenge delivery, review evidence and sustain senior oversight.

Proportionate by design: provider qualification and bank-readiness can be commissioned through a focused diagnostic or assurance route. Detailed scope and commercial terms are agreed privately; DQIntegrity does not publish rigid price cards or force a larger programme before the evidence supports one.

Focused specialist mandate, wider architecture where needed

DQIntegrity remains accountable for the specialist Data Quality & Integrity work.

DQIntegrity may lead a focused mandate, own the specialist data-quality and control workstream within a wider programme, or independently assure work delivered by the client or a technology provider. Where the requirement becomes broader or multi-workstream, it can be structured through NFRisk and coordinated with agreed delivery participants.

**How DQIntegrity fits within wider mandates** — Three clear engagement configurations, with principal-led accountability and mandate-specific participation.© DQIntegrity.com, July 2026

Mandate-specific participation: DQIntegrity is principal-led. Any wider specialist participation is structured for the specific mandate and is subject to availability, suitability and client approval. Roles, accountability, confidentiality and commercial boundaries are agreed before work begins.

Independent. Evidence-driven. Commercially focused.

Clarify the integrity problem before expanding the programme.

The first conversation follows a simple Scoping → Evidence → Diagnosis → Decision sequence and determines whether the proportionate next step is focused diagnosis, control design, provider qualification, remediation assurance or Retained Senior Data Quality & Integrity Advisory.

Discuss an integrity mandate