A permitting bot demo for city council must avoid showing real parcel owner names. Which control best fits the demo environment?

Masking parcel owner names in the demo so real identities are not displayed is the control that best fits a permitting bot demonstration for city council. Data masking substitutes or obscures sensitive field values in non-production or demonstration contexts so the workflow still looks realistic without disclosing real people. A council demo of a municipal permitting bot should show structure and behavior without projecting live parcel owner identities onto screens in a room that is not an authorized production workplace for that data.

Enforcing read-only roles in the demo so parcel owner names stay concealed fails because it only prevents edits; it does not change the fact that real identities are still displayed on screen. Encrypting demo parcel owner names at rest so stored values remain protected fails because it only protects stored values and the demo still decrypts them for display, so real identities appear on screen instead of being masked. Replacing parcel owner names with reversible tokens so displays stay realistic fails because the tokens remain reversibly linked to real owners, so real identities stay recoverable in the demo instead of being irreversibly masked.

Exam caveat: Demo and lower environments use masking or synthetic data applied to the whole displayed record, not read-only roles that leave parcel owner names visible or encryption at rest that still decrypts to real identities for display.

Operational check: Configure the permitting bot demo environment with masked parcel owner names (or synthetic owners) across every identifying field, walk the council demo without live production identities, prohibit relying on read-only roles to keep parcel owner names concealed, keep basic access logging enabled, and avoid reversible tokens that leave real owners recoverable instead of being irreversibly masked.