This approach demonstrates improved governance and scalability in data architectures, indicating effective compliance checking for natural-language policies.
Modern data architectures increasingly rely on decentralized data products described through semi-structured artifacts, such as YAML descriptors, to support scalability, interoperability, and governance. Ensuring that these descriptors comply with organizational and regulatory policies remains a challenging and labor-intensive task, largely due to the natural-language nature of policies and the heterogeneity of descriptor schemas. In this paper, we investigate a model-based approach to evaluating natural-language policies over semi-structured data product descriptors expressed in YAML, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as reasoning components. We formalize the policy-descriptor compliance task as a binary decision problem and propose an LLM-based microservice architecture that combines structured prompt engineering with deterministic output constraints to support automated policy verification. To evaluate the approach, we construct an augmentation-based benchmark comprising 4,000 policy-descriptor pairs derived from 40 manually annotated seed combinations. The benchmark is designed to assess model robustness to policy paraphrases and semantically equivalent descriptor rewrites. We evaluate four open-source instruction-tuned LLMs under identical conditions and report results in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and execution time. Experimental results show that LLMs can effectively support policy verification in semi-structured environments, achieving up to 72% accuracy. However, we observe a consistent conservative bias toward non-compliance, as well as systematic failure modes involving conjunctions, bidirectional constraints, and conditionally inapplicable rules. Our analysis highlights both the potential and the current limitations of LLM-driven governance, and suggests that expressing policies as explicit procedural checks substantially improves validation reliability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simbola et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: