Observatory Scientific-Data Continuity Leader — Deep-Sky Research

The mandate

The scientific-data director departed after checksum anomalies and a flawed lifecycle job affected a bounded archive tier containing raw observations and calibration products. Replicas exist, but teams cannot yet prove which derived datasets inherited suspect inputs or whether published analyses used later-repaired calibrations. New observations continue, making evidence preservation and uninterrupted researcher access simultaneous executive problems.

The interim is required within three weeks for eight months, covering archive forensics, science-impact assessment, repaired lifecycle control and permanent-leader induction. An international search starts immediately, with the incoming director expected in month seven for a four-week overlap. The fixed term will not extend if recruitment slips; the council will nominate an internal custodian if needed.

Handover requires all affected objects to have verified provenance and disposition; priority derived products and cited releases must be traced to raw and calibration versions; two archive-recovery exercises must meet integrity and access objectives; and new lifecycle rules must operate for ninety days without unexplained loss. The successor will approve an unseen restore and accept remaining publication-notification obligations.

The interim may freeze archive deletion, restrict suspect data, reprioritise sanctioned compute and storage, commission specialist recovery within a CLP3.8 billion envelope and issue technical notices to member institutions. Retraction or author notification, permanent appointments, public statements and spend above budget require the observatory director or council. The role cannot determine scientific validity beyond evidence integrity.

Telescope scheduling, instrument selection and wholesale redesign of science pipelines are outside this assignment. The leader may require provenance changes at those interfaces but does not own observing allocation, researcher priority or reanalysis of unaffected studies. Recovery must distinguish a damaged evidence chain from a scientific conclusion that responsible investigators alone can reassess.

Why this seat is open

The archive event and executive departure occurred together, leaving technical teams able to recover objects but no leader authorised to set scientific evidence priorities across member institutions. Researchers need transparent limitations without premature claims about published conclusions. A temporary executive must restore trustworthy custody and leave permanent leadership an independently tested lifecycle system.

What you will own

• Bound affected raw, calibration, derived and released objects through checksums, replicas, lifecycle histories, manifests and processing provenance.
• Decide which datasets remain usable, require warning, need reconstruction or must be withheld pending accountable scientific review.
• Trace priority publications and active programmes to observation, instrument, calibration, pipeline, parameter and archive versions.
• Establish immutable manifests, corruption detection, replica diversity, retention, deletion approval and evidenced restore controls by data tier.
• Direct recovery exercises involving regional loss, latent corruption, catalogue inconsistency and unavailable calibration dependencies.
• Coordinate technical notices that state evidence impact precisely while leaving scientific reinterpretation and publication action to investigators.
• Transfer authority through an unseen restore, member review and successor acceptance of unresolved derived-data and notification obligations.

Candidate qualifications

• Led scientific-data archives or research computing for astronomy, earth observation, physics, genomics or comparably provenance-intensive science.
• Recovered latent corruption across replicated storage and demonstrated which derived assets inherited the affected evidence.
• Governed raw, calibration, processing and released product lineage through changing software and long research timescales.
• Communicated archive limitations to international scientists without conflating technical integrity with the validity of their conclusions.
• Directed petabyte-scale restore and lifecycle exercises where access continuity, cost and preservation requirements competed.
• Transferred a research infrastructure function after an integrity event with outstanding publication or member obligations visible.

Non-negotiables

• Available within three weeks with regular Santiago and high-altitude site presence subject to medical and observatory safety clearance.
• Has personally carried scientific archive integrity authority; enterprise backup leadership without research provenance depth is insufficient.
• No undisclosed commercial interest in storage, cloud, HPC or data-management suppliers involved in the recovery.
• Will preserve investigator autonomy while communicating evidence limitations promptly to every materially affected member institution.

1. 49 words maximum. State your Chile availability and one archive-corruption event whose derived-data impact you personally bounded.
2. 49 words maximum. How would you trace a published result to a later-repaired calibration without judging the science itself?
3. 49 words maximum. Which unseen restore scenario would test both object integrity and complete processing provenance?