Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Regulatory Reporting Data Governance for Project Managers

Build the data lineage, ownership, and submission controls that keep prudential reports clean under examiner review.

A capital ratio restatement does not start with a bad model. It starts with a data flow nobody documented, an ownership field left blank after a team reorganisation, and a PM who could not answer the examiner's lineage question in the review window.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Regulatory reporting at a global bank runs across dozens of source systems, multiple legal entities, and reporting frameworks that each have their own data definitions. COREP pulls from the risk data warehouse. AnaCredit pulls from the loan origination platform. Pillar 3 ESG pulls from a mix of both, plus external ESG data providers. Each reporting cycle, the PM is accountable for the accuracy of figures that are assembled from data nobody fully owns.

BCBS 239 requires banks to demonstrate data lineage and accuracy for risk data. EBA guidelines on internal governance require documented controls over regulatory submissions. In practice, most project managers running reporting workstreams have inherited pipelines where lineage documentation exists in a spreadsheet someone built three years ago and ownership is whoever responds fastest to a Slack message.

The gap is not technical. The data engineers can build the pipelines. The gap is governance: a structured approach to lineage mapping, ownership assignment, control design, and submission audit trails that a PM can build and maintain without needing to be a data architect.

What you walk away with

Map data lineage from source system to reporting template for any prudential submission.
Assign and document data ownership in a way that survives staff rotation and team reorganisation.
Design submission controls that produce an audit trail an ECB or PRA examiner can follow.
Identify and close the governance gaps most likely to trigger a regulator data quality finding.
Build a BCBS 239 compliance posture that is maintainable by a PM team without full-time data architect support.
Run a structured pre-submission review that catches reconciliation breaks before the window closes.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The Regulatory Reporting PM Accountability Map

Defines the exact scope of a reporting PM's data governance accountability: what you own versus what the data engineering team owns versus what the risk or finance function owns. Works through a COREP capital template as the running example, tracing which cells carry PM accountability for data provenance versus model output. Produces a one-page accountability map you can use in the next submission readiness review.

Module 2. Data Lineage Mapping: From Source to Template

Teaches the practical skill of tracing a reported figure back to its source system, through any transformations, joins, or aggregations in between. Covers the minimum documentation standard that satisfies BCBS 239 Principle 2 (data architecture and IT infrastructure) for a PM-maintained lineage register. Worked example maps three figures from a FINREP P&L template back to their source ledger accounts and the transformation logic applied.

Module 3. Ownership Assignment That Survives Reorganisation

Most regulatory reporting ownership breaks when a key person changes teams. This module teaches a role-based ownership model (not person-based) that assigns accountability to a function rather than an individual, with an escalation chain and a handover protocol. Covers how to document this in a Data Ownership Register that is updated as part of standard BAU governance rather than only when something breaks.

Module 4. The Submission Control Framework

Walks through the four control types a reporting PM needs: completeness controls (every required field populated), accuracy controls (figures reconcile to agreed source), timeliness controls (submission delivered within the regulatory window), and change controls (any late revision is logged with a reason code). Provides a control template structured around EBA guidelines on internal governance that can be adapted to any prudential reporting workstream.

Module 5. Reconciliation Design: Preventing the Pre-Submission Break

The reconciliation break that appears three days before submission close is almost always caused by a control that was designed to run monthly but needs to run daily, or a check that was skipped during a system migration. This module teaches how to design a reconciliation schedule aligned to submission frequency, with clear break escalation paths that bring the right data owners into the resolution without requiring the PM to diagnose the technical cause.

Module 6. AnaCredit Data Quality: Attribute-Level Governance

AnaCredit requires granular, attribute-level data quality documentation that most banks manage through a combination of system validations and manual reviews. This module teaches how to build an attribute-level data quality governance layer for AnaCredit: which attributes carry the highest supervisory scrutiny, how to document the source and population logic for each, and how to manage the resubmission process when errors are identified post-submission.

Module 7. BCBS 239 Compliance for the Reporting PM

BCBS 239 is addressed primarily by bank chief data officers and risk function leadership, but the reporting PM is where the principles meet operational reality. This module maps each of the 11 BCBS 239 principles to specific PM-level actions: what a PM can demonstrate in a supervisory review, what evidence the lineage register and control framework produce, and how to close the most common BCBS 239 gaps identified in SSM thematic reviews.

Module 8. Pillar 3 ESG Reporting: Data Sourcing and Control

Pillar 3 ESG disclosure requires banks to source data from internal risk systems, finance systems, and third-party ESG data providers, and to document the basis for each figure. This module covers the data governance challenges specific to ESG reporting: how to map climate risk exposure data from the credit risk system, how to apply a fitness assessment to third-party ESG data, and how to build the audit trail required for the disclosure basis.

Module 9. Building the Regulatory Reporting Data Dictionary

A data dictionary aligned to reporting requirements is the foundation of consistent, examiner-ready submissions. This module teaches how to build and maintain a reporting data dictionary that maps each reported data element to its regulatory definition, its source system field, its agreed calculation methodology, and the data owner responsible for its accuracy. Covers the minimum viable version a PM team can build in four weeks without a dedicated data management platform.

Module 10. Managing Data Quality Findings and Supervisory Queries

When a supervisor raises a data quality query or issues a finding, the PM needs to run a structured response process: root-cause identification, evidence gathering, remediation planning, and prevention controls. This module walks through a finding response protocol structured around the ECB SREP data quality assessment process, with a worked example of a capital ratio query that required lineage documentation, reconciliation evidence, and a control improvement plan.

Module 11. The Pre-Submission Readiness Review

The week before submission close should follow a structured readiness protocol rather than a reactive search for open items. This module provides a pre-submission readiness checklist tailored to quarterly prudential reporting: data completeness confirmation, reconciliation sign-off, ownership confirmation for contested figures, version control, and sign-off chain documentation. Teaches how to run the review as a repeatable process rather than a bespoke exercise each quarter.

Module 12. Governance Maintenance: Keeping the Register Current

Data governance documentation degrades faster than it is built. This module covers the maintenance practices that keep a lineage register, data dictionary, and control framework current through system changes, regulatory amendments, and organisational restructures. Provides a quarterly governance health check process and a change impact assessment template that a PM can use to identify which governance artefacts need updating when a source system or reporting requirement changes.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Supervisor asks for lineage documentation on a COREP figure three days before submission: Modules 2, 9, 10.

Team reorganisation removes the data owner listed in the RACI for AnaCredit: Modules 3, 6, 12.

Reconciliation break appears in the FINREP P&L template during pre-submission review: Modules 4, 5, 11.

BCBS 239 thematic review is scheduled; PM needs to demonstrate data governance posture: Modules 1, 7, 9.

What you get with this course

12 written modules delivered through the Art of Service learning environment.
Downloadable templates for every governance artefact: lineage register, data dictionary, control framework, pre-submission readiness checklist, ownership register, and change impact assessment.
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to your reporting workstream, delivered alongside course access.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

Submission readiness depends on knowing which person to call when a figure does not reconcile. Lineage documentation exists in a spreadsheet that is two system migrations out of date. Supervisor queries require a reactive investigation that takes longer than the response window.

After

Each reporting cycle runs against a documented lineage register and control framework. Data ownership is role-based and current. Pre-submission review follows a repeatable protocol. Examiner queries have an audit trail to draw from.

What happens if you do not address this

Supervisors are increasing data quality scrutiny across prudential reporting. Banks that cannot produce lineage documentation and control evidence on demand face findings that require costly remediation programmes. The PM who owns the submission is accountable for the governance layer whether or not it has been built properly.

Who it is for

A project manager or programme manager at a bank or financial institution who owns or co-owns one or more regulatory reporting workstreams. Responsible for submission accuracy, on-time delivery, and readiness for supervisory review. Comfortable with reporting frameworks (COREP, FINREP, AnaCredit, Pillar 3) at a functional level but looking for a disciplined, repeatable approach to the data governance layer that sits underneath them.

Who this is NOT for. Data engineers building the pipelines. Quant or risk modellers working on capital calculations. Compliance officers focused on policy rather than data operations. Anyone who does not have direct accountability for submission quality or examiner readiness.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Approximately 8-10 hours to complete all 12 modules. The governance templates and implementation playbook are designed for immediate application to your current reporting workstream.

Why $199 is the right number

Regulatory reporting governance training from major consultancies is available as multi-day workshops at fees starting from several thousand dollars per participant, with content calibrated to senior leadership rather than the PM responsible for day-to-day submission operations. Internal training programmes focus on the regulatory frameworks themselves rather than the data governance layer. This course is built specifically for the PM accountable for submission quality, at a price that does not require a training budget approval.

FAQ

Does this course cover specific reporting systems or data platforms?

The governance principles and templates are system-agnostic. Worked examples reference common source system types (risk data warehouses, loan origination platforms, general ledgers) without assuming a specific vendor. The implementation playbook is tailored to your actual systems and reporting stack.

Is this relevant outside of EU prudential reporting?

The core data governance skills apply to any jurisdiction with structured regulatory reporting requirements. Worked examples draw primarily on EBA and ECB frameworks (COREP, FINREP, AnaCredit, Pillar 3) but the lineage, ownership, and control methods transfer directly to PRA, Fed, FINMA, and other supervisory reporting environments.

How is the implementation playbook tailored?

The playbook is built by hand for your specific reporting workstream based on your role, regulatory scope, and the data environment you described at purchase. It adapts the course templates to your actual submission calendar and governance gaps. Delivered within 24 hours of purchase.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.