muskanshafat

Fixed!

Fair point. I realize that I oversimplified.. My main argument is that the Ontology isn't a clean internal graph. It ingests from sources Palantir doesn't own or control, so deleting your node doesn't touch the upstream data. And inferred edges (risk scores, behavioral patterns) were never stored as discrete objects. You can't delete an inference.

And, I will hold my hand up to say I did use an LLM (Claude, actually). But only to make the text read and flow better (something I definitely won't do again). The underlying research is my own and something I am very passionate about. Thank you for your feedback! I appreciate it. :)

That is the easy case, right?

The Ontology problem is one layer harder. The edges I'm describing are inferred i.e, risk scores, behavioral patterns, connections between a person and a geography. There's no standardized form for them and no agreed technical definition of what deletion even means. That's where the enforcement gap is sharpest and what my intention is in writing that piece.

:D well, good news is, they haven't passed the Turing Test completely ... just yet!

Point taken, mate.

The underlying research is mine (one that I am actually very passionate about) but I did run it through an LLM to smoothen the flow. Not something I will do again. Thanks for the feedback!

Fair correction - I should have been more precise.

The point I was reaching for is a practical enforcement one: verifying that edges have actually been deleted from an opaque, continuously updated knowledge graph has no standardized technical mechanism. Regulators have audit powers, but graph deletion verification i.e, confirming that relational inferences are gone, not just that a node was removed has no established standard. Controllers can assert compliance in ways that are genuinely difficult to challenge in practice.