USE CASE 1 — LEGAL WORKSPACE
THE PROBLEM
A law firm's entire practice depends on client confidentiality. Files, communications, and research are stored across Google Drive, Gmail, and various case management tools — all of which are operated by third parties with their own access policies, sub-processors, and jurisdictional obligations.
The question a regulator or client may ask — 'who has had access to this matter?' — cannot be answered with precision, because the firm does not hold the access logs.
THE TRADE-OFF
Cloud tools offer convenience and low upfront cost. The trade-off is a continuous delegation of data authority to a third party — and in legal practice, that authority is not the firm's to delegate.
THE SOLUTION
A Parioni Infra deployment, with role-based access control mapped to the firm's matter structure. Files are stored on a server held by the firm. Communications are routed through a custom domain mail setup. Authentication is managed through a private identity layer. Access logs are held internally.
THE OUTCOME
The firm can answer 'who accessed what, and when?' with evidence it generated and holds. Client privilege is architecturally protected, not policy-dependent. Regulatory obligations are met through the infrastructure itself, not through vendor attestations.
USE CASE 2 — RESEARCH INSTITUTION
THE PROBLEM
A research team working on sensitive datasets — clinical trial data, proprietary research, or data subject to transfer restrictions — is storing files in a cloud environment governed by a US-based provider. Data residency requirements, funding body obligations, and ethical review conditions all require that data be held within a specific jurisdiction and accessible only to named individuals.
The current architecture cannot satisfy these requirements with evidence. The team is relying on vendor assurances rather than architectural proof.
THE TRADE-OFF
Cloud storage is accessible from anywhere and requires no infrastructure management. The trade-off is that data residency becomes a matter of trust rather than verification.
THE SOLUTION
A regional VPS-hosted Parioni Infra instance, deployed in the required jurisdiction. Storage on a NAS physically held by the institution. Role-based access control restricts dataset access to approved researchers only. Every access event is logged and exportable for ethics board and funding body review.
THE OUTCOME
The institution can demonstrate data residency with evidence — not with a vendor's compliance certificate. Ethics board and funding body requirements are met structurally. Researchers access data through a secure, institution-controlled interface from any location.
USE CASE 3 — MULTI-JURISDICTION ORGANISATION
THE PROBLEM
A financial services firm operating across multiple jurisdictions faces a patchwork of data protection obligations — GDPR in Europe, UK data protection law post-Brexit, local financial regulatory requirements, and LP data governance standards. A single cloud provider cannot satisfy all of these simultaneously, and the firm's current setup is producing compliance ambiguity at every audit.
THE TRADE-OFF
A single cloud provider offers simplicity and integrated tooling. The trade-off is that the firm's compliance posture becomes hostage to the provider's own regulatory interpretation and data processing agreements — which change without the firm's input.
THE SOLUTION
A sovereign infrastructure deployment with jurisdiction-specific data storage: regional VPS instances deployed in the relevant jurisdictions, with data routing governed by classification rules the firm defines. A unified interface provides operational consistency. Access control and audit logging are centralised and exportable.
THE OUTCOME
The firm can demonstrate compliance jurisdiction by jurisdiction, with evidence it holds and controls. Audit preparation becomes a documentation exercise rather than a vendor coordination exercise. As regulations change, the firm's infrastructure adapts — because the firm controls it.