Editorial draft available to read. Factual and language review is pending. Examples are illustrative.
Decision and method
Translate the process approved by privacy owners into verifiable fields. Distinguish purpose, channel, wording version, date and source. This data design does not determine the applicable legal basis on its own. Avoid a single global flag that mixes handling enquiries with preferences concerning future marketing communications.
Illustrative example
Illustrative example: someone requests a proposal and declines email updates. The CRM preserves both decisions separately. A later import must not override the refusal merely because its file contains an email address; changing a preference requires a source and a previously agreed rule governing that particular update.
Acceptance check
Test creation, preference changes and reimporting with fictional records. History should reconstruct what wording was shown and what decision was recorded. Before enabling actual communications, the appropriate owner should review the process, wording and rules; the mere existence of a database field does not demonstrate compliance.
Key takeaways
- Keep specific, traceable decisions according to a process that has already been reviewed.