I want to ask the community something, and I would appreciate honest answers.
A pattern I keep running into: a team has a Great Expectations suite that runs clean, and a business claim sitting on top of it like “we catch every duplicate transaction” or “no record older than 24 hours reaches the dashboard.” The suite passes. The claim sounds reasonable. But the actual mapping between what the config checks and what the claim asserts is rarely something anyone has written down or had an outside set of eyes on.
Two honest questions for the people who live in this work:
-
Have you seen the gap I am describing in your own teams, where the validation is solid but no one has independently confirmed the config actually supports the specific claim the business is making?
-
If someone independent did that check and wrote up a short evidence-based finding for you, would that be useful, or is this a non-problem in practice?
Not selling anything here. Trying to figure out whether this is a real pain or whether internal review already covers it. Brutal feedback welcome.