Field showing in brain results, privacy query

Dominic, I am writing to raise a privacy concern with the support team before it goes any further. While reviewing results from the brain yesterday, I found that one record surfaced a field that, in my view, falls outside the minimum necessary data for the referral-relations use case. I have not copied the content into this email and I will not do so. Please treat the detail as something to be handled through the ticket and not by mail. Before I decide what needs to go to our compliance committee, I need to know: - Is the field being indexed by the brain, or only displayed from the source? - Has the record left our Snowflake account at any point? - What control will you document so that this field cannot be indexed again? I would ask for written answers rather than a call, as I need to file them with the business associate agreement records. Please also confirm who owns this on your side. Marisol Vega Privacy and Security Officer, Quarrington Care Network

Hi Marisol, I've taken ownership of this, and I'm sorry for the gap between your note and this reply. Here's what we know. Confirmed: - The field has been excluded from the connector configuration, so it is no longer read by the brain. - The record has been purged from the index. Both steps were done within a day of your report. - The record never left Quarrington's own Snowflake account. The brain runs inside your account, and the index sits there too. Not yet confirmed: I don't want to say anything about how the field came to be included until the review is finished. I won't speculate on that. Hannah Lowe, our solutions engineer, is cc'd. She will put the exclusion and the purge in writing so you have something to file, and Hollie is copied as your customer success manager. Next update by Monday. If you would rather I answered your three questions one by one, tell me and I'll do that first. Thanks, Dominic

Dominic, Thank you for the reply. I appreciate that you were direct about what is confirmed and what is not. I do have to be firm on one point. A statement that the record never left our Snowflake account is not something I can enter into our records on your word alone. I need the evidence behind it: the configuration change as it now stands, the evidence of the purge, and the audit trail that shows where the record was held. Please also tell me whether the exclusion is a one-off change or a standing rule that will apply to any similar field in future. Is any PHI in scope for the rest of the referral-relations connectors? I would like that confirmed in the same document, so the scope is documented in one place and I am not chasing it piecemeal. I will say that the speed of the fix was good, and I will note that in my report. Marisol Vega

Hi Marisol, Thanks, that's a fair list. Here's where each item stands. Hannah has prepared a short write-up covering the exclusion, the purge and the audit trail. It is attached to your ticket, so it stays with the incident record. It also says plainly that the exclusion is a standing rule on that field and not a one-off edit. On scope: Hannah has gone through the other connectors with the same question you asked and listed what each one indexes, so you can see the minimum necessary position in one place. If anything in there doesn't match your understanding, tell us and we will correct the record, not argue the point. Hannah will also be available if your team wants to walk through the architecture, and she will answer in writing what she can't answer live. I'll keep the ticket open until you confirm you are satisfied. Next update by Thursday if I haven't heard from you before then. Thanks, Dominic