Paul Miles — CLM Data Taxonomy Completeness Scorecard (Executive Heatmap)
Tag: S-2026-06-19-paul-taxonomy-completeness-scorecard
Type: own-writing
Author(s): Paul Miles (Redstrata), with AI agent
Date of source: 2026-06-19
Date ingested: 2026-06-19
Authority weight: own-writing.
Raw file: /_raw_sources/S-2026-06-19-paul-taxonomy-completeness-scorecard.md (Markdown twin); editable deck at _ClaudeWorkspace/01 Taxonomy/CLM_Data_Taxonomy_Completeness_Scorecard.pptx.
What it claims
An executive single-slide scorecard / heatmap that visualises the depth and breadth of content required to complete the CLM Data Taxonomy, and which areas are complete vs. prioritised. Two axes, per Paul’s framing:
- Rows (breadth) — credit lifecycle stages (Origination & Application; Underwriting & Decisioning; Documentation & Drawdown; Portfolio Monitoring & Covenants; Collections & Early Warning; Recovery & Workout), representing Business Glossary term depth. Each row maps the live workstream onto it: Tier Matrix Glossary (live/governed) → Underwriting & Decisioning; Policy Glossary (in build) → Origination & Application; Covenants + ODS Day-2 (in build) → Portfolio Monitoring & Covenants; ODS Day-2 monitoring (partial) → Collections & Early Warning.
- Columns (depth) — metadata maturity layers, shallow → deep: Business Glossary → Metadata (business + technical) → Data Lineage → Data Quality → Governance & Ownership. The deeper the column, the more business/technical metadata required to evidence lineage, DQ and governed ownership; the scale of the credit data architecture (golden-source systems → ODS → consumption in the CLM UI and Power BI) drives the volume behind the right-hand columns.
- Cells — indicative % complete shown as heat intensity.
Anchored to BCBS 239, the ECB RDARR Guide (May 2024), DCAM v3 (target DCAM 4 at CLM R2) and DAMA-DMBOK v2. Deliverables (editable PPTX + Markdown twin + approach/work-breakdown record) saved to _ClaudeWorkspace/01 Taxonomy.
Notable quotes
None — own-writing.
What’s speculative vs. asserted
- Asserted (sourced): the two-axis structure; the metadata-depth column order; the four in-scope glossary workstreams and their status (Tier Matrix live/governed; Policy, Covenants, ODS Day-2 in build for SREP H2 2026); the regulatory anchors; the glidepath direction (low → high maturity, H1 2026 → 2029).
- Speculative / presentation device: the per-cell % complete values are indicative placeholders reflecting only the known qualitative status — they are explicitly flagged for calibration against programme tracking and were not measured. The credit-lifecycle row framing is an executive device; stages with no live workstream are labelled “not yet started”.
Topics this feeds
Open questions raised
- What the calibrated (actual) completion figures are once mapped to the programme tracker / Confluence governance pages.
- Whether the row set should be extended as further glossary workstreams go live beyond the current four.