Topic starter
23/06/2026 7:01 pm
TL;DR: Rule-based data quality can confirm a known violation, but it cannot explain silent drift or unexpected upstream change, according to Collibra. Freshness, volume, distribution, schema and lineage need to be linked to show what changed and who is affected.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Collibra: “Data observability platform: How to proactively monitor and trust your data at scale”.
Key questions
Q: Why do static data quality rules miss the failures that matter most?
A: Static rules only catch conditions someone predicted in advance.
Q: What signals show that a data observability programme is actually working?
A: You should see faster detection of schema changes, fewer unresolved freshness issues, shorter triage times and clearer ownership when incidents occur.
Q: How do teams know whether observability is actually improving data quality?
A: Teams should look for fewer unresolved schema breaks, faster root cause analysis, better freshness compliance, and less manual reconciliation across sources.
Practitioner guidance
- Define observability beyond rule testing Map every critical dataset to freshness, volume, distribution, schema and lineage signals so teams can see which failures static quality rules will miss.
- Tie alerts to asset ownership Ensure every observability alert resolves to a named data owner, an upstream source and a downstream impact path so investigations do not stall at notification.
- Separate known-rule checks from anomaly detection Keep deterministic quality rules for explicit policy violations, then add anomaly detection for silent drift, delayed feeds and distribution changes that no one predicted.
Bottom line: Rule-based data quality can confirm a known violation, but it cannot explain silent drift or unexpected upstream change.
Glossary terms: Data Observability, Data Quality, Data Lineage, Anomaly Detection
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 11 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 2:47 am
Data observability is the control layer that exposes failure mode, not just failure state: The industry has over-indexed on rule compliance and under-invested in causal context. When a field is valid but wrong, the question is no longer whether a check fired, but whether anyone could explain the change before it reached a report, model or regulator. The practitioner conclusion is that diagnosis has become a first-class governance requirement.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What happens when schema drift reaches AI and reporting systems undetected?
A: Undetected drift can silently degrade model inputs, distort outputs and undermine audit evidence before any obvious failure appears. The practical consequence is not just bad data, but broken trust in decisions that depend on that data across analytics, operations and compliance.
👉 Read our full editorial: Data observability closes the gap that data quality checks miss