Why this exists (necessity)
The book’s central claim is that data lives in six dimensions, but most organisations govern only one (space) and confuse a single-dimension success for whole-problem control. You cannot close a gap you cannot see. This scorecard makes all six dimensions, plus the seventh relational question, visible on one page, and forces an honest score for each.
The problem it solves
“Are we compliant?” gets answered with a localisation certificate and a retention schedule, and everyone goes home. This artifact replaces that false comfort with a structured map of exposure: where you are genuinely strong, and where you are accountable but not in control.
Who it’s for (target audience)
Chief AI/Data/Privacy Officer, CISO, GC/CRO, and the data-governance lead - anyone who has to brief a board on “how exposed are we, really?”
When to use it
Quarterly governance reviews, pre-audit readiness, due diligence (buy- or sell-side), before greenlighting a new AI/data product.
The Artifact
For each dimension, score 0-4 using the rubric, then plot. 0 = not addressed; 1 = recognised, no owner; 2 = policy exists, not enforced in systems; 3 = enforced in systems, partially evidenced; 4 = enforced and provable on demand.
| # | Dimension | The question | Score (0-4) | Owner | Evidence you could produce today |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Where (Spatial) | Where is it, and where may it go? | |||
| 2 | When (Temporal) | When was it, and is the yes still alive? | |||
| 3 | Why (Teleological) | Why was it collected, and is the why still alive? | |||
| 4 | What it shaped (Influence) | What models/decisions has it shaped? | |||
| 5 | Which room (Contextual) | In which context was it disclosed? | |||
| 6 | What it became (Provenance) | What has it been transformed into, and who owns that? | |||
| 7 | Whose? (Relational) | Who else does this data disclose or decide for? |
Reality-check banding (expect this shape): Dimension 1 commonly scores 3-4. Dimension 2 scores 1-2. Dimensions 3-7 commonly score 0-1. If your scores are flat-high across the board, you are scoring your intentions, not your systems - re-score against “what could we produce in an audit tomorrow.”
The one diagnostic question per dimension (use if a score is contested):
- Where: What do our transfer maps not show?
- When: Could we prove what we believed on a given day last year?
- Why: For a given record, is its original purpose still alive and what in our architecture would even hear it die?
- Influence: Which of our models could we not afford to destroy if ordered to?
- Context: Which data flows are lawful but norm-breaking and what would surface the difference?
- Provenance: Name the plank and exactly where did our “proprietary asset” stop being someone’s data?
- Relational: Whose data are we holding that we never collected from them?
How to use it
Run it as a 60-minute workshop with the named owners in the room. Score live, demand the “evidence you could produce today” column be filled honestly (blank = score 0-1), and convert every gap into one entry on a remediation backlog. Re-run quarterly and watch the 3-7 columns move and that movement is your governance programme.
Back to the book
The whole book is the legend for this scorecard. Foreword (“Flatland”) explains why five of six dimensions are invisible and the Closing chapter’s “Map of Six” table is the master key. Chapter Seven adds the relational row. Read the chapter that matches your lowest score first.