Rethinking Data Quality for AI-Driven Systems: Evidence from Practitioner Interviews

Data quality assessment is a critical prerequisite for effective data analytics and data-driven decision-making, yet it remains a challenging task due to the inherently context-dependent nature of data quality. Existing approaches often rely on static rules or manual assessment strategies, limiting their adaptability to diverse usage scenarios and constraining automation at scale. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, offer new opportunities for automating data quality assessment, but raise concerns related to reliability, grounding, and execution safety. In this paper, we propose a unified agentic-retrieval framework for autonomous context-aware data quality assessment. The framework interprets natural-language descriptions of intended data usage, derives context-aware assessment strategies, and generates executable validation logic through a multi-agent workflow. To ensure operational reliability, the framework introduces a feasibility validation stage that evaluates the realism and executability of generated assessment specifications before execution, enabling iterative refinement when necessary. Accepted validation logic is executed deterministically to guarantee reproducible and auditable results. We implement the proposed framework as an end-to-end prototype and evaluate it across multiple usage scenarios applied to the same dataset. The results demonstrate that assessment outcomes adapt meaningfully to different intended uses, while feasibility-gated execution reduces unrealistic or non-executable rule generation. The proposed approach provides a practical foundation for deploying autonomous yet controlled data quality assessment in modern data-driven environments.

High-stakes tabular pipelines rely on scattered, static quality checks that are hard to evolve and audit against policy intent. Regulated domains particularly suffer as the LLM-era automation raises expectations for traceability and accountability. We propose a vision for an ontology-grounded, repository-native data quality layer in which rules are first-class artifacts: versioned, provenance-linked to governance texts, and re-playable through immutable execution traces. As a first step toward validating this vision, we present a concrete implementation of its agentic rule-discovery core with two rule acquisition modes (Full-Agentic and Guided) and a human-in-the-loop (HITL) review interface. We define an evaluation framework and run experiments addressing whether our fully autonomous, divide-and-conquer agentic rule discovery produces rules of the same quality and diversity as those specified by a human expert, reporting preliminary results on two real world industry datasets in the finance and retail domains.

Large language model chatbots have been proposed as AI-interviewers for collecting qualitative interview data at scale, potentially bridging social science's longstanding divide between the breadth of surveys and the depth of qualitative interviews. This paper provides the first direct empirical comparison of data quality in AI-led and human-led interviews. In a randomized experiment (N = 41), university students were interviewed via synchronous text chat by either trained non-expert interviewers or a locally hosted AI system; we evaluate exposure, specificity, and relevance. Median interview duration was similar across conditions, but AI-interviewers asked more than twice as many questions per interview and elicited roughly 65 percent more respondent text per interview. Per-question responses were longer with human interviewers, though not after multiple-testing correction; only AI-condition participants skipped questions. Responses were almost uniformly on-topic in both conditions; for specificity we detect no difference, but the design cannot exclude one of up to three quarters of a point. These results were obtained with a small, locally hosted open-weight model (7B parameters), which addresses concerns about data security, GDPR compliance, and scientific reproducibility. Our findings support the viability of AI-interviewing for large-N qualitative data collection.