Keeping Watch Without Breaking Trust: Designing Observability That Speaks Both to Engineers and Regulators
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-9246.IJETCSIT-V6I1P122Keywords:
DevOps Observability, Financial Compliance, Regulatory Audit Trails, Real-Time Monitoring, Trust Engineering, Adaptive Data Governance, AI-Driven Telemetry FilteringAbstract
In the world of financial technology, engineers want observability to be fast, flexible, and noisy enough to catch failures in real time. Regulators, on the other hand, want quiet, permanent, and tamper-proof records. Right now, most DevOps observability tools pick one side, leaving teams to either move quickly and risk compliance gaps, or log everything and drown in data. This paper asks a simple but uncomfortable question: what if observability could genuinely serve both masters without breaking trust on either side? We explore a design philosophy where telemetry data is neither fully ephemeral nor fully permanent. Instead, it flows through an adaptive pipeline that tags, prioritizes, and routes information based on dual needs speed for incident response, and cryptographic integrity for future audits. Drawing on early examples from banks and payment processors, we argue that the real innovation isn’t another monitoring tool. It’s a governance layer that sits between engineers and regulators, translating real-time events into auditable evidence without killing agility. The result is observability that feels honest, not policed.
Downloads
References
[1] J. Kosińska, B. Baliś, M. Konieczny, M. Malawski, and S. Zieliński, “Toward the observability of cloud-native applications: The overview of the state-of-the-art,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 73036–73052, Jun. 2023.
[2] P. Thantharate, “IntelligentMonitor: Empowering DevOps environments with advanced monitoring and observability,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. (ICIT), Amman, Jordan, Aug. 2023, pp. 800–805.
[3] A. Mahida, “Integrating observability with DevOps practices in financial services technologies: A study on enhancing software development and operational resilience,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1–9, 2024. doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2024.0150701.
[4] “Continuous compliance automation in financial quality engineering: Policy‑as‑code, CI/CD enforcement, and ISCM‑aligned regulatory assurance,” J. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 6, no. 1, 2024. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.18085319.
[5] W. Pourmajidi, L. Zhang, J. Steinbacher, T. Erwin, and A. Miranskyy, “A reference architecture for observability and compliance of cloud native applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11617, Feb. 2023.
[6] H. Pandian, “Embedding performance engineering into CI/CD pipelines for regulated financial systems,” Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications (JoCAAA), vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 7892–7910, Dec. 2024.
[7] M. Saminathan, A. S. Mohammed, and A. Selvaraj, “Automating cloud compliance for financial services using policy-driven monitoring and auditing tools,” Journal of Applied and Advanced Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2022.
[8] M. E. Vogelstein, “A cloud-native AI framework for secure financial networks: DevSecOps-enabled threat detection and multivariate risk analytics,” International Journal of Research in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 3, May 2022, doi: 10.15662/IJRAI.2022.0503003.
[9] A. Farooq, A. Sultana, and M. Waseem, “DevOps in regulated financial environments: A systematic literature review on integration challenges with compliance and auditability,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2120–2140, Apr. 2023. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2022.3201234.
[10] Y. Liu, L. Chen, and R. Rodriguez, “LogChain: A blockchain‑based audit trail for cloud‑native financial systems,” in Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), Paphos, Cyprus, Sep. 2024, pp. 145–156. doi: 10.1109/IC2E59179.2024.00025.
