After a GDPR-style minimization project, several analytics fields were dropped—improving privacy but breaking completeness for a legacy grant report. What should the program do?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Trimming fields for privacy can starve a legacy report that still expected them. Minimization and completeness for secondary uses can trade off—name that trade explicitly. Realign expectations instead of pretending both goals never collide.
Full Explanation
Privacy minimization can legitimately remove attributes that secondary analytics or legacy reports still assumed were present. Completeness expectations for those uses must be renegotiated, reports redesigned, or lawful bases reassessed—not silently ignored. DQ and privacy stewards should document the trade-off so scorecards and consumers stay aligned. Treating the goals as independent creates recurring incidents.