---
title: "Comment by Mateo Ruiz on \"Deleting Personal Data from a RAG System in .NET\" | Hashnode"
description: "The strongest point here is that erasure has to follow the data lineage, not just the original record. In a RAG system, the database row is only one representat"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/deleting-personal-data-from-a-rag-system-in-net/6abd5fa1c02e2338b2100943/comment/6abf7842ba66d9a05f68d801"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/deleting-personal-data-from-a-rag-system-in-net/6abd5fa1c02e2338b2100943)

Comment [Deleting Personal Data from a RAG System in .NET](https://hashnode.com/posts/deleting-personal-data-from-a-rag-system-in-net/6abd5fa1c02e2338b2100943)

[Mateo Ruiz](https://hashnode.com/@mateoruiz)

[Oct 2](https://hashnode.com/posts/deleting-personal-data-from-a-rag-system-in-net/6abd5fa1c02e2338b2100943/comment/6abf7842ba66d9a05f68d801)

The strongest point here is that erasure has to follow the data lineage, not just the original record. In a RAG system, the database row is only one representation; chunks, embeddings, caches, generated answers, logs, staged work, and even older index generations can all become independent persistence points.

One production detail I’d emphasize is treating the source revision as a fencing mechanism, not just metadata. In production RAG work at IT Path Solutions, this is the kind of boundary that prevents an already-running ingestion job from republishing an obsolete revision after deletion has started. Provenance tells you what to remove; controlled publication tells you it cannot quietly come back.

That distinction also makes verification much stronger: “the delete call succeeded” is an execution result, while “no covered revision can still be served or republished” is the actual system invariant.