Start for Free

The Sovereignty Evaluation Framework for Financial Services Industry 

 

What Regulators Demand (And Your Platform Can't Deliver)

Download now

Can Your Streaming Platform Pass a Sovereignty Audit?

When your fraud detection system runs on infrastructure you don't control, in jurisdictions you can't verify, with data flows you can't audit, you have a sovereignty violation waiting to be discovered.

With DORA now in effect since January 2025, NIS2 enforced across the EU, and data residency requirements tightening globally, regulators are scrutinizing real-time data processing infrastructure with increasing rigor. Most streaming platforms fail the test. As we argued in Data Sovereignty Is Existential and Most Platforms Treat It Like a Feature, sovereignty is a structural requirement not a feature to be added later.

The Problem: Sovereignty Is an Architecture Issue

Most streaming platform vendors cannot meet FSI sovereignty requirements. This isn't a capability gap: it's an architecture problem.

Finding Impact
Most platforms are cloud-only architectures Deployment flexibility sacrificed for convenience
Streaming governance is bolted on, not built in Real-time data flows lack adequate oversight
Vendor-managed services cannot prove data residency Sovereignty requirements remain unmet
Security controls were designed for the trusted-network era Zero Trust architecture gaps persist
AI/ML governance treated as an afterthought EU AI Act compliance at risk

For a visual breakdown of how vendor-managed platforms create a false sense of control, see The Control Illusion: What Vendor-Managed Platforms Hide.

And for a deeper analysis of why "Zero Trust" has become marketing theater for most vendors, read Zero Trust Theater: Why Most Streaming Platforms Are Pretenders.

Sovereignty Evaluation Framework

What's Inside the Evaluation Framework

 

This technical guide provides a 26-requirement evaluation framework across five critical sovereignty domains, plus a detailed assessment of how Ververica's architecture addresses each requirement.

  • Deployment and Infrastructure
  • Data Governance
  • Security and Zero Trust
  • AI/ML Governance
  • Operational Excellence Requirements

 

For a detailed look at Ververica's deployment models, governance, and Zero Trust architecture, see How Ververica Delivers Sovereignty for Financial Services.

 

Who Should Use This Framework

 

  • CTOs & VPs of Engineering to evaluate concrete sovereignty requirements
  • Chief Architects Identify gaps during platform selection
  • Compliance Officers Document due diligence for DORA, NIS2, and GDPR
  • Platform Engineers Evaluate technical sovereignty posture
  • Procurement and Risk Teams Assess vendor risk and exit strategy

 

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

 

Sovereignty gaps in your streaming infrastructure create compounding business risks:

 

  • Regulatory findings that delay projects and consume executive attention
  • Supervisory scrutiny that constrains growth and innovation
  • Vendor lock-in that erodes negotiating position and increases costs
  • Data residency violations with potential fines and reputational damage
  • Architecture debt that becomes exponentially expensive to remediate

 

A framework-based evaluation identifies these gaps before they become audit findings.

Gain Access to the Complete Technical Evaluation Framework

Get the full 26-requirement sovereignty evaluation framework with:

  • Detailed evaluation criteria for each requirement domain
  • Vendor red flags that signal architecture-level sovereignty failures
  • Regulatory mapping to DORA, NIS2, GDPR, BCBS 239, and EU AI Act
  • Interactive sovereignty audit checklist for vendor comparison