Data has a lifecycle: it is created, changed, retired, and — legally — sometimes must be erased. Modeling that lifecycle explicitly avoids resurrected "deleted" rows, missing audit trails when something goes wrong, and GDPR/CCPA exposure from data that should have been purged. This module is design-axis (Temporal category). It applies across paradigms.
What it checks
- Soft-delete consistency: a
deleted_at/is_deletedcolumn present on some tables but not others, or present without the matching guards — queries/uniques/FKs that ignore it (resurrecting deleted rows in joins, UNIQUE collisions). Ties to the M5 over-nullable UNIQUE trap. - Audit / history trail: sensitive tables (financial, auth, permissions, config) with no change history (no
*_history/*_audittable, no temporal columns, no trigger/CDC) — when something is wrong, there is no record of who changed what when. - Retention & erasure (GDPR/CCPA): PII held with no retention window, no documented purge/anonymization path, or "soft delete" used where the law requires actual erasure or anonymization. Cross-reference PII detection in M10.
- Temporal validity: bitemporal/effective-dated data using a single timestamp where
valid_from/valid_tois needed; missingend_date >= start_dateCHECK.
Axis & severity
- Axis: design; magnitude banded, never a fabricated record count or fine amount.
- PII with no retention/erasure path (compliance exposure): severity 4,
warn, confidencedirectional(legal applicability needs human review — never auto-caps). - Inconsistent soft-delete with no query/unique guards: severity 3,
warn. - No audit trail on financial/auth tables: severity 3,
warn. - M8 holds no sev-5 cap; it shapes the Temporal category value.
Tier-0 static check
Parse DDL/snapshot via scripts/parse-schema.mjs: detect soft-delete columns and check whether they appear consistently and in UNIQUE/partial-index definitions; look for companion *_history/*_audit tables or temporal columns on sensitive tables; flag PII-bearing tables (email, name, phone, address, dob) with no retention/erasure marker. Static → directional.
Tier-1 verification query
Find tables with soft-delete but no audit companion, and confirm soft-deleted rows still satisfy a "unique" key:
-- $DATABASE_URL, read-only
SELECT table_name FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE column_name IN ('deleted_at','is_deleted')
AND table_schema NOT IN ('pg_catalog','information_schema');
-- resurrection check: deleted rows colliding on a natural key
SELECT email, count(*) FROM users GROUP BY email HAVING count(*) > 1; -- if soft-deleted dupes appear
Findings
Emit per schema/finding.schema.json. Examples:
M8.users.pii_no_retention_or_erasure— PII columns with no retention window or erasure/anonymization path (severity 4,warn, axisdesign, confidencedirectional).M8.orders.soft_delete_inconsistent—deleted_atpresent but joins/uniques ignore it, resurrecting deleted rows (severity 3,warn, axisdesign).M8.permissions.no_audit_trail— auth-critical table has no change history (severity 3,warn). Each finding:evidence.observedquotes the relevant DDL/column verbatim (PII values never echoed);verification.reproduceis a runnable query above (method: ddl_parse/schema_introspect/query_stat);expected_impactbanded + confidence-tagged.
Honesty
- GDPR/CCPA applicability is a legal determination, not a schema fact — flag the exposure (no erasure path) as
directionaland defer the legal call to a human; never assert a fine or a violation as established. - Soft delete is a valid pattern; flag only inconsistency (some tables/queries honour it, others don't), not its use.
- Never invent retention periods or record counts; band the impact and cite the missing mechanism, not a number.