Review the architecture that will be delivered
ChartSplice engagements are scoped around the customer’s sources, data foundation, reporting needs, and access requirements. The security discussion needs to reflect that actual arrangement.
We distinguish the marketing website from the reporting application and its source connections. This website contains fictional reporting fixtures and does not query customer clinical, financial, CRM, or advertising systems.
For an analytics implementation, the review identifies where data originates, where it is processed and stored, which identities can access it, and which parties operate each part.
Limit the reporting surface to its purpose
Executive reporting usually needs defined measures and approved dimensions. It does not require a browser to hold source credentials or accept arbitrary warehouse queries.
ChartSplice’s existing implementation work includes a server-side, bounded reporting path that returns defined aggregate measures. That demonstrates an approach, not a claim that every customer deployment shares an identical access model.
The implementation scope establishes the specific data projection, approved filters, access boundary, and testing required for the customer.
Make access requirements a first-class decision
Organization, location, role, and person-level access requirements affect the architecture. They need to be defined and tested rather than inferred from a dashboard screenshot.
If a customer requires individual identity, single sign-on, role-based access, granular export audit, or other controls, the proposal must address those requirements explicitly. This website does not claim that every such capability is already included in every engagement.
Source administration and reporting access are also different responsibilities. The people who can grant or revoke source permissions may not be the people who use the executive view.
Handle aggregate information deliberately
An aggregate report can still require careful data handling. Removing a name or presenting a total does not establish that every combination of filters is de-identified.
The reporting design considers the approved purpose, projected fields, small or sensitive groups, export behavior, and any applicable disclosure rules. Specific controls and responsibilities are established for the deployment.
Authorized users may still retain an authorized screenshot or export. The architecture and agreement should describe what can actually be controlled.
Separate source truth from publication status
Reliable reporting needs understandable failure behavior. A delayed source, incomplete publication, or denied request should not silently substitute old fixtures or invent a zero.
We scope how availability and period context appear and how operational exceptions are handled. Monitoring, alert destinations, response expectations, and maintenance responsibilities are part of the engagement.
An implementation review should identify the controls that are present, the checks that were performed, and any residual limitations.
Discuss regulated-data requirements directly
If the engagement involves regulated information, the data flows, contractual arrangements, vendor responsibilities, permitted uses, and required controls must be reviewed for that scope.
This website does not assert a blanket HIPAA certification, SOC 2 certification, or guarantee that data never leaves a customer’s environment. Nor does the existence of a customer-owned warehouse establish those claims by itself.
Bring the security and procurement requirements into discovery so the proposed architecture can address them before implementation.
What to bring to the review
- The source systems and data platform involved.
- The business purpose and minimum reporting information required.
- The users, locations, and organizational boundaries to support.
- Identity, access, export, retention, and contractual requirements.
- The people responsible for source administration and security acceptance.
The goal is a reviewable arrangement: a data-flow picture, explicit responsibilities, a bounded reporting scope, and evidence for the controls that will be relied upon.