The race to AI readiness is making us rethink data engineering and metadata management as we've come to know them in analytics. Trust is taking on a whole new meaning. Over the past few years, data contracts have been hailed as the answer to messy pipelines and misaligned teams. But in practice, most of what I see in enterprises is stale YAML files, schema definitions that drift from reality, and contracts that get treated like documentation instead of enforceable agreements. In my latest blog, I share why the concept of data contracts isn’t the problem; it’s the execution. Static approaches can’t keep up with the dynamic, AI-driven systems we’re building today. The way forward isn’t to abandon contracts, but to rethink them: 🔹 Make them live instead of static 🔹 Tie them to business logic, not just schemas 🔹 Ensure they are enforced and trusted at runtime Full blog post linked in the comments. #dataobservability #metadataactivation #dataquality #aiinfrastructure #dataengineering
I'm really intrigued by the solution you suggested. I do agree with the premise and how AI has changed some collaboration paradigms. Still, declarative systems exist because a single source of truth is usually the easiest way to align independent agents (whether human or AI).
Totally agree, static contracts can’t keep up with dynamic systems. Making them living, enforceable, and tied to business logic is the only way forward.
Fully agree that static contracts quickly lose relevance in dynamic environments. In my experience scaling data systems in fintech and AI, making contracts “live” and directly enforceable at runtime has been critical for maintaining trust and data quality. How do you see business logic best integrated into contract enforcement for complex, evolving pipelines?
CEO & Co-founder at Sifflet
3whttps://medium.com/@salmabakouk/data-contracts-dont-work-here-s-how-we-fix-that-be7cd9335b9e