Derived Data and Retention After a Licence Ends

Define the transformation with an example

Give the reviewer a small synthetic input and its transformed output. A percentage change, cross-sectional ranking, sector aggregate and trading signal expose different information. Describe whether the recipient can infer source values and whether the output substitutes for a source feed. Avoid treating derived as a technical certification: a simple transformation can preserve most of the economic information in its input, while a complex one can still reveal identifiable values.

CME Group publishes a derived-data licence with product-specific provisions and post-termination treatment. It illustrates why the applicable definition and documents matter; its public form is not a universal rule or the agreement of an unnamed buyer. In a real purchase, ask for the relevant executed documents, appendices and incorporated policies. Review the proposed output against those materials rather than importing a convenient definition from another supplier's website.

Inventory retained objects by purpose

Separate raw inputs, temporary processing files, daily outputs, report copies, configuration histories and access logs. Record where each object lives and why it is needed. A report archive supports reconstruction of a communication; a full input warehouse can support new calculations. Those purposes should not be merged under a single request to retain research. Identify copies in collaboration tools and backups as well as the primary analytical store.

Add a distinction between technical possession and authorized access. An immutable backup may contain an old file even after routine access has ended. That fact requires a considered retention and restoration plan, not an automatic conclusion that either permanent deletion or unrestricted use is appropriate. Ask which people can access an archive, what event permits retrieval, and how restored material will be prevented from re-entering ordinary production or research workflows without review.

Separate preservation from continued exploitation

A buyer may want to preserve evidence explaining a past decision without continuing to calculate new outputs or sell access to old ones. Put these intentions in different rows. Ask for explicit treatment of read-only audit access, responding to an inquiry, reproducing an old report and using retained observations in a new model. An answer addressing one purpose should not be silently extended to the others by the implementation team.

WIPO's technology-transfer guidance emphasizes adapting agreements to their circumstances. For retention, that means reviewing the real contractual provisions alongside applicable recordkeeping, privacy and dispute-related obligations. Do not invent a standard retention period or assume an ordinary termination request overrides all preservation duties. Qualified reviewers should resolve conflicts and document lawful restrictions on access, rather than ask an engineer to make a legal judgment through a storage lifecycle setting.

Work through a hypothetical archive design

A hypothetical evaluation produces forty output files of two megabytes each and eight review reports of three megabytes each. The working set is 40 x 2 + 8 x 3 = 104 megabytes, excluding metadata and backups. The buyer proposes keeping only the eight reports in a restricted evidence archive after evaluation, which would contain 24 megabytes. This is a storage calculation and a request for review, not an assertion that report retention is permitted.

The eighty megabytes of output files have a different proposed disposition, still subject to the actual agreement and preservation obligations. The team checks whether the reports themselves embed detailed outputs; deleting the original files would not remove those copies. It also identifies two backup replicas without counting them as separate rights. Only after the proposed dispositions are reviewed does the storage owner configure access and deletion rules for each object class.

Rehearse an orderly end to access

Use synthetic fixtures to rehearse disabling access, stopping refreshes and separating retained evidence from reusable datasets. Verify that dashboards no longer query an expired feed and that scheduled processes cannot recreate files marked for removal. A successful access shutdown is not proof that every copy has been addressed. Reconcile the inventory with shared drives, support attachments, caches and backup restoration procedures before describing an exit process as complete.

Document the evidence the buyer can actually produce: a disabled credential, an inventory review, a storage-policy record or a deletion receipt. Avoid promising absolute erasure across every historical backup when the infrastructure cannot verify it. Where retention is justified or required, record the basis, scope, access controls and review date. Distinguish an agreed operational plan from a certificate whose wording has not yet been reviewed by the responsible legal and security teams.

Revisit rights when outputs gain a new purpose

A historical archive can gradually become a valuable dataset for a new product. Treat that proposal as a new use, not as a consequence of already possessing the files. Check model permissions, upstream data conditions and any constraints attached to client information. The same applies when previously internal aggregates become public charts or when old model scores become labels for training another system. A changed purpose deserves a fresh documented decision.

The final retention schedule should state the object, purpose, disposition, responsible owner and unresolved condition in plain language. Include the governing document versions so later staff can understand the basis without relying on oral history. This is a framework for organizing questions, not jurisdiction-independent legal advice. A defensible exit plan is one that the buyer can implement and substantiate within its actual agreements and applicable obligations, not one with the most sweeping deletion promise.

• Keep retention permission separate from reuse permission.
• Check embedded copies and restoration paths before asserting deletion.

Source notes

1. CME Group: Published Derived Data License Agreement
2. WIPO: Technology Transfer Agreements