What was said
What this says
Current to 11 Oct 26Marisol Vega asked for a field to be excluded and purged and for written confirmation of where it was processed. Dominic Hale confirmed both, said the record stayed in Quarrington's Snowflake account, and sent a write-up; the ticket stays open.
Ask: Marisol judged a field to be outside minimum necessary under the business associate agreement and asked for exclusion, purge and written confirmation of processing location. BB-Demo's first reply came on 14 Jul 2026, after she had asked who owned it and when to expect an update.
Customer view: She was glad it was handled promptly once raised, but wants timestamps, verification evidence and a sign-off step for future fields.
Next: Hannah Lowe to walk Marisol's team through the connector configuration list; the ticket stays open until Marisol confirms she is content.
The thread
Updated 9 Oct 26Messages
- Marisol Vega 9 Jul 2026 10:36Dominic, During a routine review of what the brain has indexed, I found a field that, in my judgement, falls outside minimum necessary for the purpose we agreed under the business associate agreement. I do not want to describe its contents in email, as I would rather not repeat potentially sensitive data in a message. I am asking for three things, please: - the field be excluded from indexing going forward; - any record already indexed from that field be purged; - written confirmation of where that data was held and processed at every stage, including whether any copy left our environment. Please tell me who owns this on your side and when I can expect an update. Marisol Vega Privacy and Security Officer, Quarrington Care Network
- Dominic Hale 14 Jul 2026 11:26Hi Marisol, I've taken ownership of this, and I'm sorry this confirmation has taken a few days to reach you. I wanted to check the facts properly before writing, so here's what we know. The field was added to the exclusion list in your index configuration, and the record was purged from the index, within a day of your message. The record never left Quarrington's own Snowflake account. BB-Demo runs inside that account, so nothing was copied to us or to any other environment. Hannah has the configuration change and the purge log and is putting them into a short written summary you can file. Next update by Wednesday, with that summary attached. Thanks, Dominic
- Marisol Vega 15 Jul 2026 09:30Dominic, Thank you. This is clearer than I expected, and I am glad it was handled promptly once I raised it. To document the control, I will need the summary to state: the date and time the exclusion took effect, the date and time of the purge, how you verified that no copy remained in the index, and the basis for saying the record stayed within our Snowflake account. A statement that it was never stored elsewhere is not sufficient for my file without that evidence behind it. I would also like to know how a future field is reviewed before it is indexed, so that scope does not grow without our sign-off. Marisol Vega
- Dominic Hale 16 Jul 2026 12:55Hi Marisol, Here's the write-up, as promised. Hannah has checked each point and I've put her notes in below. - Exclusion: the field was added to the exclusion list, with the time of the change recorded in the configuration history. - Purge: the indexed record was removed, and a follow-up query on the index returned nothing for that field. - Location: the access logs show the data was read and written only inside your Snowflake account. - Going forward: new fields are only indexed once they are listed in the connector configuration, and Hannah will walk your team through that list so you can approve changes before they take effect. The full document is attached for your compliance file, including the timestamps you asked for. If anything in it falls short of what you need, tell me and I'll have Hannah put it right. The ticket stays open on my side until you confirm you're content. Thanks, Dominic