PwC · Tech Consulting · Medium · 25-35 min

Audit-Ready Data Lineage at a UK Asset Manager

Audit-Ready Data Lineage at a UK Asset Manager is a medium PwC tech consulting case interview that runs 25-35 min. A £140B AUM UK asset manager. A strong answer works through 5 phases: Re-state the regulatory ask in operational terms; Map the as-is data landscape; Pick the tooling pattern (catalog vs lineage vs GRC) and justify why one stack rather than three; Sequence; Operating model.

Last updated 2026-09-05

The brief

A £140B AUM UK asset manager. Six underlying ledgers, three reporting tools, two ESG vendors, monthly board pack assembled half in Excel. FCA Consumer Duty has just bitten — the firm must be able to evidence the lineage of every customer-impacting figure end-to-end within 18 months. The CDO has a £6M envelope and is choosing between Collibra, Alation, and an SAP-stack solution, plus a ServiceNow GRC overlay. You are the lead advisor on the proposal.

How to approach it

  1. Re-state the regulatory ask in operational terms — what 'auditable lineage' means in evidence, sample size, and refresh frequency
  2. Map the as-is data landscape — six ledgers, three reporting tools — and decide which flows are in scope first
  3. Pick the tooling pattern (catalog vs lineage vs GRC) and justify why one stack rather than three
  4. Sequence — what is evidenced in month 6, month 12, month 18, and how regulator dry-runs are staged
  5. Operating model — who owns lineage after the project ends, how data owners are appointed, what the auditor signs

What a strong answer does

  • Reframes lineage as evidence-on-demand, not a documentation exercise — every figure must be reproducible by an auditor in minutes
  • Distinguishes catalog (Alation/Collibra), lineage capture (compute-side), and GRC workflow (ServiceNow) — picks one tool per layer, not three competing
  • Identifies regulatory dry-runs in month 9 and month 15 as the forcing functions for the roadmap
  • Names the human work — data owners, stewards, attestation — as the hard part, not the tool
  • Quantifies the cost of failing Consumer Duty — Section 166, redress, capital add-on — to justify the £6M

Red flags interviewers score down

  • Picks a tool before mapping the in-scope flows
  • Promises automated lineage end-to-end without acknowledging the Excel boundary
  • Treats Consumer Duty as a compliance project rather than a permanent operating capability
  • Never addresses who owns it after go-live

Cases are written in each firm's style, written and reviewed by working consultants; they are not the firms' own published cases.

More PwC cases