Erasure-Coded Archive Integrity Recovery Leader

The mandate

A policy change moved ageing image objects into a denser erasure-coded tier before background validation and repair capacity had been recalibrated. Subsequent regional failures revealed unreadable shards, inconsistent metadata and derivatives whose source lineage could not be proven. The data-infrastructure executive was released after teams restored customer files opportunistically without establishing the affected population or preserving forensic evidence.

The interim must start in São Paulo within twelve business days and hold the role for eight months. A permanent archive-reliability search begins after the authoritative object inventory and reconstruction priority model are approved, expected in month three. The successor will overlap for four weeks and must command one regional-loss reconstruction exercise plus the final customer-evidence council.

Handover requires the affected population and uncertainty bounds to be signed, priority imagery to pass cryptographic and semantic validation, erasure and metadata policies to match measured failure domains, repair capacity to meet a tested risk threshold, lineage from acquisition through derivative to be queryable, and the permanent leader to accept unrecoverable-object decisions and ongoing verification schedules.

The interim may freeze lifecycle transitions, isolate storage regions, prioritise reconstruction, set repair capacity, redirect internal specialists and approve up to BRL 65 million inside the recovery envelope. Customer disclosure, permanent appointments, vendor termination, legal disposition of lost records and decisions above BRL 12 million require committee approval. The seat may not fabricate missing imagery or suppress uncertainty in customer evidence.

Satellite-tasking strategy, imagery model quality, customer analytics and replacement of healthy transactional storage are expressly out of scope. The mandate owns archive integrity, erasure policy, metadata agreement, reconstruction, lineage evidence, supplier recovery obligations and the operational controls that prevent silent deterioration.

Why this seat is open

The storage change converted a cost optimisation into a potentially unbounded evidence problem, and leadership removal left recovery teams without authority to prioritise truth over apparent file availability. Customers use historical imagery for regulated and high-value decisions, making uncertain lineage commercially material. Temporary command is required to establish the population, recover defensibly and transfer continuing verification before the next archive migration.

What you will own

• Establish an authoritative object census across payloads, shards, parity, metadata, replicas, derivatives, checksums, regions and customer references.
• Bound the corruption population using lifecycle history, failure domains, repair logs, policy versions and statistically defensible sampling.
• Decide reconstruction priority according to contractual obligation, uniqueness, acquisition repeatability, downstream lineage and technical recoverability.
• Validate restored objects through cryptographic integrity, format checks, geospatial semantics, source linkage and derivative reproducibility.
• Reconfigure erasure width, placement, scrub, repair, throttling and capacity headroom using measured correlated-failure exposure.
• Command regional-loss and metadata-divergence exercises that prove discovery, reconstruction, escalation and customer-evidence generation.
• Transfer the loss register, restored corpus, policy rationale, supplier claims, verification schedule and residual risks through successor-led command.

Candidate qualifications

• Held senior accountability for petabyte-scale object or archival storage using erasure coding across genuine failure domains.
• Recovered silent corruption involving payload, shard, checksum or metadata disagreement and bounded an uncertain affected population.
• Designed scrub and repair capacity against correlated failure, storage growth and operational throttling rather than nominal durability claims.
• Preserved data lineage and customer evidence while reconstruction proceeded under commercial and legal pressure.
• Led production loss exercises that tested metadata authority and repair throughput, not merely node or disk replacement.
• Handed a long-running archive-verification regime to permanent leaders with unrecoverable data and uncertainty explicitly recorded.

Non-negotiables

• Can begin in São Paulo within twelve business days and travel monthly during reconstruction and assurance work.
• Will accept exclusive executive duty and continuous escalation availability for archive and customer-evidence incidents.
• Brings live erasure-coded recovery at material scale; backup administration or storage procurement alone is insufficient.
• Must disclose current interests involving object-storage, cloud, satellite-data and recovery-service providers.

1. 49 words maximum. State your earliest São Paulo start and the largest silent-corruption population you have bounded.
2. 49 words maximum. Describe an erasure-coded object whose shards appeared sufficient but whose metadata made safe reconstruction impossible.
3. 49 words maximum. Which test distinguishes restored bytes from a defensible earth-observation record?