This repository houses the interactions, consultations and work management to support the maintenance of baselined components of the Consumer Data Right API Standards and Information Security profile.
41
stars
9
forks
source link
Recognition of corrected data in DH Dashboard #563
CDR Rule 1.15(3)(g) states that Data Holders must provide an online service (the consumer dashboard) that is able to reference the fact that data has been corrected following a consumer request to do so.
We are therefore seeking guidance to understand:
How to communicate the correction fact associated with 1.15(3)(g)
Area affected
CDR Rule 1.15(3)(g)Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Section 56EN
New item or change proposed - questions
What is the expected information that should be displayed in the consumer dashboard once consumer data has been corrected?
Would textual statement suffice?
Is a correction date required, to illustrate the chronology of pre and post correction actions?
Are participants expected to provide an indication of what information has been corrected?
While Rule 1.15(3)(g) applies to DHs, is the expectation that this would this apply to both the DH and the ADR dashboards? If so, how would ADRs receive the necessary relevant information from DHs in order to present this?
Is an updated status value expected for the impacted authorisation? If still active, are we to reflect the fact that the data has been corrected in the status value somehow - perhaps corrected, or updated. Noting that introducing new status values would have a significant impact on existing participant implementations.
:warning: Disclaimer :warning:
The CX Guidelines provide optional implementation examples for key rules, standards, and best practice recommendations.
They demonstrate key aspects of the consent model, but certain areas may be considered out of scope. This may include, for example, where the rules and/or standards are silent or non-prescriptive to provide CDR participants with flexibility or discretion according to their own systems or protocols.
:heavy_exclamation_mark:The CX Guidelines span policy, rules, standards, and best practice, so requests will be considered on a case by case basis and timings may not fall within a Maintenance Iteration cycle.
Importantly, the CX Guidelines are optional to follow, but the CDR rules require CDR participants to have regard to them. The CX Standards differ in that they are binding data standards that must be followed.
Description
CDR Rule 1.15(3)(g) states that Data Holders must provide an online service (the consumer dashboard) that is able to reference the fact that data has been corrected following a consumer request to do so.
We are therefore seeking guidance to understand:
How to communicate the correction fact associated with 1.15(3)(g)
Area affected
CDR Rule 1.15(3)(g)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Section 56EN
New item or change proposed - questions
What is the expected information that should be displayed in the consumer dashboard once consumer data has been corrected?
active, are we to reflect the fact that the data has been corrected in the status value somehow - perhapscorrected, orupdated. Noting that introducing new status values would have a significant impact on existing participant implementations.:warning: Disclaimer :warning: The CX Guidelines provide optional implementation examples for key rules, standards, and best practice recommendations.
They demonstrate key aspects of the consent model, but certain areas may be considered out of scope. This may include, for example, where the rules and/or standards are silent or non-prescriptive to provide CDR participants with flexibility or discretion according to their own systems or protocols.
:heavy_exclamation_mark:The CX Guidelines span policy, rules, standards, and best practice, so requests will be considered on a case by case basis and timings may not fall within a Maintenance Iteration cycle.
Importantly, the CX Guidelines are optional to follow, but the CDR rules require CDR participants to have regard to them. The CX Standards differ in that they are binding data standards that must be followed.