Anyone else having issues getting straight answers on data deletion processes?

Ugh, that's super frustrating. I've run into the same vague "compliance" claims when looking at hosted analytics. They love the buzzwords but can't point to the actual process.

Your rubric idea is solid. I'd add one more check: ask them to show you the audit trail for a deletion request. If they can't produce a log showing the request, the job execution, and confirmation of purging from backups, then their process is probably manual and not something you can rely on.

Have you considered pushing for a paid trial and making a real deletion request part of the evaluation? Sometimes they only show the real mechanics when you're in the system.

Totally agree on asking for the audit trail. That's a great filter.

I actually had a vendor get defensive when I asked for that log, which was a huge red flag. Their "process" was just a support ticket, no tracking at all. The paid trial idea is smart, though - makes it real for them.

That defensiveness you encountered is a classic symptom of a brittle, manual process. When the answer is "just a support ticket," it often means their data model isn't built for true programmatic erasure. The foreign key constraints are probably a mess, or they're doing soft deletes everywhere and calling it "archiving," which isn't deletion.

A paid trial with a real request is the ultimate test, but be prepared for it to fail in a way that's invisible. Even if they return a "success," you have no way to audit their backup rotation. A mature system should provide a deletion request ID that ties into their internal event log, showing propagation to cold storage and eventual cryptographic shredding. If they can't show you that chain, assume the data persists somewhere.

The cURL example failure is a dead giveaway. If their engineers haven't built a testable endpoint, the process is ad-hoc.

Add this to your rubric: demand a deletion request ID that corresponds to a visible log event in their product. No log, no proof.

Also, ask for their backup data structure. If they can't describe how a deletion propagates to their S3 Glacier or Azure Blob Archive tiers, their SLA is fiction.

Exactly, the audit trail is the only verifiable proof of a systematic process. I've found that asking to see the actual *structure* of the deletion log during a demo is telling. A proper system will have a dedicated event table or log stream for data lifecycle events, not just generic admin logs.

The paid trial idea is good, but you need to be specific about what you're testing. Request the deletion via their prescribed method, then immediately ask for the audit log entry using the request ID they provide. If they can't surface that specific chain in their own UI or via a support query, the process isn't integrated.

This also reveals if their "automation" is just a script a human runs, which introduces lag and error risk. A real programmatic system ties the request directly to their job queue and backup purging workflows.

Your specific question about the request/response cycle for a purge API is the key technical hurdle. A synchronous deletion for a full user dataset is almost always a red flag; it implies they aren't handling cascading deletions or backup layers. The correct pattern is an asynchronous job with a returned ID, but the critical detail is the webhook or status endpoint for that job.

You must ask for the job's state machine. Does it move from `queued` to `replicas_purged` to `backup_invalidation_initiated`? If their status is just `pending` then `complete`, they're hiding the multi-system propagation. That missing granularity is how vendors conceal the fact that backups are excluded from the SLA.

For your webhook question on `user.deleted`: if they offer it, immediately ask for the payload schema and the delivery guarantee. The event must fire *after* the core transactional deletion, but *before* the backup purge, so you have a window to cascade. If they can't specify its timing in the deletion workflow, the event is useless for true synchronization.

The cURL example fumble is a massive red flag. If their API docs can't produce a simple `DELETE` request for a user purge, the process doesn't exist programmatically.

Your question about the SLA across backup systems is the right one, but you'll never get an honest number in a sales cycle. They'll quote you a best-effort number for the primary datastore. The real answer is in their backup rotation policy and cryptographic shredding schedule. Ask for the *maximum* time to deletion, not the average. If they can't define the maximum because "backups are out of scope," then their compliance claim is false.

Start demanding the data flow diagram. How does a deletion request propagate from the app layer, to read replicas, to the backup object store, and finally to tape or archive? If they can't draw that for you, walk away.

Spot on about the data flow diagram. I've found asking for that often separates the vendors who've actually engineered their system from those who are just hoping their manual process holds up.

One nuance I'd add to the backup SLA point: sometimes the "maximum time" they give is technically accurate but misleading. They might quote the longest retention tier, like 90 days on Glacier, but fail to mention that the deletion job only *initiates* the process on day 91. So the real maximum is 91 days plus their job queue latency, which they never account for.

Asking to see the job state for a backup invalidation, like you said, is the only way to pin them down.

That's a really sharp observation about the queue latency. It's often the unaccounted-for variable that stretches the real timeline. I've seen the same thing with "immutable" backup systems, where the process to mark data for eventual deletion can sit in a pending state for days before it even starts the clock on the actual retention period.

Asking for the *full* state lifecycle, including any pending or initiation stages, is the only way to get the true picture. Otherwise you're just getting the theoretical best case.

Yeah, that sample cURL request fail is super telling. If they can't give you a simple DELETE example, the feature probably isn't real.

I'm still learning about this stuff for my own projects. Your point about the SLA across backups is key. When they say "30 days," does that clock start when your request hits their API, or after some internal queue processes it? That delay seems like a big loophole.

Also, does asking for the job state steps seem too demanding during a sales evaluation? I'm worried they'd just ghost me.

Totally agree about the queue latency loophole. It's like saying a package ships in 2 days but not counting the week it sits in their warehouse "processing."

On it being too demanding, if they ghost you for asking about job states, you probably dodged a bullet. A vendor confident in their system should be able to sketch that out, at least in a follow-up email. I usually ask for it as "just trying to understand the flow" and haven't been ghosted yet.

Have you tried asking for their internal wiki diagram or runbook? Sometimes they'll share a sanitized version.

Asking for a sanitized internal doc is smart. It's less polished than a sales slide, so you see the seams.

But be ready for the "security" excuse. If they refuse, ask to see the same flow described in text form in their DPA or security audit report. If it's not there either, the process is a black box by design.

That's a really practical escalation path. I've had vendors balk at sharing internal diagrams, but offering to accept a text description from their DPA is a great compromise.

It also moves the conversation from a feature request to a compliance check. If they can't point to the clause in their own DPA that details the flow, you've just answered your own question about how systematic the process is. Their auditor likely never saw it either.

Just be sure to ask for the *data processing addendum* specifically, not the main terms. That's where the actual mechanics should be spelled out.

The DPA text description is a decent idea, but I've seen the same vague language copy-pasted from one vendor's legal doc to another. "Data is removed from active systems in accordance with internal procedures." That's the clause you'll get.

Then you ask what those procedures are, and the legal team says it's a technical detail. The technical team says it's a legal matter. Loop closes.

If you really want to press, ask them to highlight the *specific lines* in their SOC 2 report that cover the backup invalidation job. Not the control objective, the actual test procedure. The silence is usually telling.