Skip to content

Access and Update Rights Matrix

Rights artifact — instantiates Source-of-Truth Assignment

A grid mapping actors and systems against fields and states to who may view, edit, approve, override, and publish, converting 'this is authoritative' into an enforceable set of who is allowed to change it.

Access and Update Rights Matrix governs permissions over authoritative state. It lays actors and systems against fields and states and, cell by cell, assigns who may view, edit, approve, override, and publish. Its distinguishing job is to make authority enforceable: a designated source that anyone can edit is not really authoritative, so this mechanism separates reading from writing from approving from publishing, and encodes who is allowed to do each. It is neither the record nor the process — it is the standing rights layer that turns a label into a controlled relation among actors and changes.

Example

An insurer's policy-administration system holds each policy's authoritative status — active, lapsed, cancelled — which must be tightly governed. The rights matrix maps it out: agents may view status and propose a change; underwriters may edit coverage fields; only a supervisor may approve a cancellation; a compliance officer may override in a dispute; and only the nightly batch may publish status downstream. Read is broad, write is narrow, override is rare and logged. The result is that no single actor can unilaterally flip an authoritative status — separation of duties is enforced by the matrix rather than resting on trust, and every powerful action has a named, bounded holder.

How it works

The matrix enumerates actors and systems on one axis and the fields or states they might touch on the other, and for each cell assigns a right level — view, edit, approve, override, publish. Distinctively, it separates these levels rather than collapsing them into a single "write" permission: authoring a change, approving it, and publishing it are different rights that can be held by different actors, which is how it encodes separation of duties over the authoritative state. It is a standing permission structure, consulted and enforced continuously, not a one-time decision.

Tuning parameters

  • Rights granularity — per-field, per-state cells versus coarse role bundles. Fine control is precise but produces a large matrix to maintain; coarse roles are simpler but blunter.
  • Separation-of-duties strictness — whether the same actor may both edit and approve a change. Strict separation prevents self-approval; loose is faster but weakens the control.
  • Override scope — how broad the override right is and how heavily its use is constrained and logged. Broad, unlogged override quietly nullifies the rest of the matrix.
  • Publish gate — whether pushing a change downstream is a distinct right from editing it, so authoring cannot silently become releasing.

When it helps, and when it misleads

Its strength is turning authority from a label into enforced permissions, and encoding separation of duties so that authoritative state cannot be changed by one unchecked hand. Its failure modes are drift and over-broad power: a matrix that falls out of date so the documented rights diverge from the actual system permissions, or override rights so wide that the careful structure becomes theatre.[1] The classic misuse is granting a senior actor blanket edit "for convenience," collapsing the very separation the matrix exists to enforce. The discipline that guards against this is least privilege, auditing override use, and periodically reconciling the matrix against the permissions the systems actually enforce.

How it implements the components

  • update_rights — specifies who may create, edit, approve, override, retire, or restore authoritative state, separated by level rather than lumped into one write permission.
  • access_control_rule — specifies who may view or read the authoritative state, distinct from who may change it.

It does not record the changes actually made (that is Change Log and Audit Trail), gate merges into an authoritative code branch specifically (that is Source-Control Main Branch), or name the accountable steward for a data domain (that is Master Data Management).

  • Instantiates: Source-of-Truth Assignment — it makes the assigned authority enforceable by controlling who may read and change it.
  • Sibling mechanisms: Change Log and Audit Trail · Source-Control Main Branch · Master Data Management · System-of-Record Designation · Conflict Resolution Workflow · Synchronization Job · Canonical Registry · Golden Record Consolidation · Official Record Policy · Authoritative Policy Repository · Deprecation and Forwarding Notice

Notes

The matrix defines who may change authoritative state; Change Log and Audit Trail records what was changed and by whom. They are complementary controls — the matrix is the gate, the trail is the record of who passed through it — and one without the other leaves either uncontrolled changes or unaccountable ones.

References

[1] "Separation of duties" — splitting a sensitive action so that no single person can complete it alone (e.g., the maker-checker pattern, where one actor edits and a different one approves) — is a core internal-control principle, closely tied to role-based access control (RBAC). The rights matrix is where that separation is made concrete over authoritative state. ↩