Beyond schema validation: Characterizing structurally valid data corruption in multi-source analytical pipelines
2026
Analytical pipelines that aggregate measurements from multiple independent data sources are vulnerable to a class of corruption we term Structurally Valid Data Corruption (SVDC): every individual record passes schema, range, and type validation, yet distributional properties of the dataset deviate from ground truth. Through grounded-theory analysis of 58 quality incidents observed across experimental monitoring of multi-source pipelines spanning 15 data sources, 28 feed types, and 12 countries over 10 quarterly cycles, we find that 73% of incidents were structurally valid yet distributionally corrupted—invisible to record-level validation by construction. We contribute: (1) a formal characterization of SVDC as a failure class defined by corruption manifested exclusively through aggregate, temporal, cross-source, or relational properties; (2) a 14-type taxonomy derived with demonstrated saturation (Cohen's κ = 0.83), organizing SVDC into four structural categories (Temporal, Cross-Source, Registry-Based, Semantic); (3) the Detection Coverage Metric (DCM), a coverage-oriented framework analogous to fault-class taxonomies in reliability engineering, demonstrating that record-level tools plateau at DCM ≤ 0.64 under exhaustive expert configuration; and (4) a distribution-level temporal monitoring approach achieving DCM = 0.93, validated through experimental evaluation over a 497-day observation window computing tens of thousands of anomaly scores daily. In experimental evaluation, the monitoring approach identified a geographic attribution anomaly within the first scoring cycle—an event that required approximately 8 months to surface through conventional review in a comparable operational scenario. Validated through 5 independently confirmed case studies spanning 3 distinct detection mechanisms (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) concentration, cross-source ratio, impression-to-spend ratio (ISR) temporal baseline). Precision across the experimental window is 72.3% (Wilson 95% CI: 58.2–83.1%). We assess cross-or
Research areas