We spent a decade unbundling the data stack.
Now, some want to bundle it up again.
In 2026, two movements are happening simultaneously.
Large platform vendors are building all-in-one ecosystems through acquisitions and native add-ons. In parallel, many enterprises are doubling down on open standards like Apache Iceberg to decouple storage from compute.
Different strategies. Same requirement.
We need data observability that remains neutral yet vigilant across the stack.
The Conflict of Interest: Why Native Observability is Never Neutral
When observability lives inside a platform, it inherits the platform's point of view.
That creates two problems.
First, coverage gaps. Native tools see what happens inside the ecosystem. They have weaker visibility into upstream APIs, reverse ETL, BI layers, and the handoffs between systems.
Second, incentive gaps. Platforms monetize compute and storage. In theory, a native monitor may not prioritize waste, duplicate pipelines, or unused data products that continue to drive spend.
Independent observability changes the frame. It measures reliability and usage across tools, then ties issues to impact and cost.
But then there's the metadata.
The Hidden Trap: Metadata Lock-in
While Open Data Architecture has made our data portable, the Great Re-Bundling is creating a new, subtler form of captivity: metadata lock-in.
If you use a native platform's built-in observability tool, your entire history of trust, your incident logs, custom monitors, lineage logic, and quality benchmarks, remains trapped within that vendor's proprietary environment. You might be able to move your files to a different storage layer, but you cannot move your governance.
While it may not meet the standard definition of lock-in, it is a strategic form of it.
Relying on a native monitor means starting your trust journey back at zero.
Independent observability, owning your metadata in a neutral layer, ensures that your record of trust is just as portable as the data itself.
And then there's dependability.
The Secondary Circuit Requirement
When a platform experiences a systemic incident, native monitoring will likely degrade with it as well.
An independent layer provides an external signal from a secondary circuit. It continues to report when the data plane is under stress, helping you validate SLAs and isolate the root cause.
Bundled stacks create opportunities for bias. Open stacks create fragmentation. Both create blind spots.
The ODA Glue: Visibility Across Open Data Architectures
For those moving toward Open Data Architecture, the challenge isn't a conflict of interest; it's fragmentation.
ODA grants you sovereignty by decoupling storage from compute.
But this freedom comes with a visibility tax.
When your stack is modular, you no longer have a single central brain overseeing handoffs. Data flows through independent layers that don't inherently communicate with one another, making end-to-end lineage a complex task.
A write succeeds in Spark. The Iceberg commit lags in the catalog. Trino reads the previous snapshot. The dashboard works, but it shows yesterday's reality.
In a decoupled stack, these failure modes live in the seams.
Independent observability is the glue that holds a decentralized open data world together**.** It's the intelligence and cross-stack lineage that modular architectures lack. It ensures that as you swap engines or pivot between clouds, your standard for data trust remains constant, portable, and, most importantly, under your control.
Separation of Concerns: Defining the Data Control Plane
To navigate the sovereignty question, data leaders must return to a foundational principle of software engineering: the separation of concerns (SoC). In a resilient, modern stack, there is a clear distinction between the data plane and the control plane:
The data plane runs ingestion, storage, and transformation.
The control plane governs trust. It owns observability, lineage, ownership, and quality signals.
Maintaining this separation upholds the standard of truth, separate from the proprietary features of the infrastructure. This architectural choice is the ultimate hedge against the future. If you decide to migrate from one warehouse to another, or adopt a multi-cloud ODA strategy, your control plane remains constant.
You own the integrity of your data, regardless of who is processing it.
Context Goes Beyond the Status Light
Integrated tools tend to focus on table-level health: Is the table fresh? Is the volume correct? While these are necessary indicators, they are technical symptoms, not business outcomes.
Independent observability elevates the conversation to the level of business impact analysis. Because a neutral layer sits above the entire stack, it can connect a technical anomaly in a warehouse to its actual consequence in the boardroom.
Instead of "table volume dropped," you get: "The CRM opportunity_stage field changed. It broke the revenue model. The QBR forecast dashboard now undercounts the pipeline for EMEA. Fifty executives will see it within the hour."
This cross-stack context enables data teams to shift from reactive troubleshooting to proactive reliability management, significantly reducing Mean Time to Resolution (MTTR).
Trust is Not a Feature
The irony of the current data landscape is that whether you choose the convenience of a bundled system or the freedom of an open one, the requirements for success are identical: accountability**.**
Trust isn't a feature to toggle on and off in a data warehouse. Nor is it a byproduct of simply adopting open standards.
Trust is a foundational layer that demands objectivity and architectural independence.
Independent observability is the essential check-and-balance that keeps your data your most valuable and reliable asset.
Free of vendor bias.
Free of infrastructure silos.
Free of the black box.
Don't let your data's integrity be an afterthought of your infrastructure. Sifflet is the independent check-and-balance your enterprise requires.
-p-500.png)
