Publishing a data product makes it visible to the organization and invites other teams to depend on it. This checklist is what to verify before that point.

Two kinds of item appear below. Enforced items are checked by Dawiso — you cannot publish without them. Quality items are not blocked by anything, and they are the ones that decide whether the product is actually adopted. A product can satisfy every enforced rule and still be one nobody trusts.

Identity

CheckKindWhy
The product belongs to the correct domainEnforcedThe domain sets the business area and the governance context
Name describes the product, not its storage locationQualityCustomer churn signals beats churn_scores_daily
Product ID follows your portfolio convention and is finalEnforcedOther systems reference it; changing it later breaks them
Type and visibility are set deliberatelyEnforcedVisibility decides who can see the product at all
Description explains the product to someone who has never seen itQualityThis is the first thing a consumer reads
Value proposition states a benefit, not the contentsQualityAnswers “why should I use this”, which drives adoption

Accountability

CheckKindWhy
Owner is a named person, not a service account or aliasQualityEvery question about the product needs a destination
Steward is assigned for meaning and qualityQualityOwns definitions and approves the contract
Custodian is assigned for the pipelinesQualityNamed operator when a refresh fails
The Owner knows they own itQualityThe wizard pre-fills you as Owner; an unaware owner is no owner

A production product with no accountable person is the most common reason a catalog stops being trusted. See Ownership.

Interfaces

CheckKindWhy
At least one output port existsEnforcedA product with nothing to deliver cannot leave draft
Every output port has at least one assetEnforcedAn empty port publishes nothing
All assets in a port share one technologyEnforcedKeeps the delivery format, contract, and access model consistent
Every input port is wired to an upstream sourceEnforcedAn unwired input is an unfinished dependency
Ports are named for what they deliverQualityConsumers pick a port by its name
Ports are split by audience, not by convenienceQualityNarrow dependencies are easier to keep stable

Governance

CheckKindWhy
A data contract covers each port other teams consumeQualityWithout one, no agreed schema and no stated terms
The contract’s schema matches what the port actually deliversQualityA wrong schema is worse than none — it misleads
The Steward has approved the contractQualityConfirms the promise meets consumer needs
Pricing, license, and data holder are set if the product is shared externallyQualityConsumers need to know the terms of use

Contracts are optional by design, which supports starting small. The trigger for adding one is a consumer outside your team. See Data contracts.

Quality and service levels

CheckKindWhy
Freshness and availability reflect what the pipeline delivers todayQualityPromising more than you deliver breaks trust once
At least one quality check exists on the dataQualityEvidence the data is tested, not just described
Someone is alerted when a check failsQualityAn unwatched check provides no assurance

Classification

CheckKindWhy
PII Level is set on the underlying assetsQualityBlank reads as unknown, not as “no personal data”
Confidentiality is set on the underlying assetsQualityTells reviewers and consumers how to handle the data
The rolled-up classification on the product looks rightQualityOne sensitive column raises the whole product

Classify at the column or table level and let the values roll up. See PII Level and Confidentiality.

Before you click publish

Three final questions catch most of what the tables above miss:

  • Could someone from another team use this product without messaging you? If not, the gap is usually the description, the contract schema, or field-level documentation.
  • Are the SLA numbers ones you would defend in three months, on a bad week?
  • If this product disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice? A product nobody needs is worth retiring rather than publishing.

For the reasoning behind these checks, see What makes a good data product. For the failure modes they prevent, see Data product anti-patterns.