The Hidden Cost of Sharing

What happens when control ends at the boundary

The sharing paradox

Modern organisations depend on external collaboration. Insurance claims require sharing evidence with investigators, legal counsel, and expert witnesses. Legal proceedings involve distributing disclosure to opposing counsel, barristers, and courts. AI model development necessitates sharing training data with external providers and development partners. Real estate transactions demand document exchange across owners, managers,

lenders, and advisors. Financial services compliance involves submitting documentation to regulators, auditors, and third-party assessors.

This sharing is not optional. It is how regulated industries function. Yet every time sensitive data crosses an organisational boundary, control collapses.

The paradox is this: the very collaboration that creates value also creates exposure. Organisations must share to operate, yet sharing through traditional methods means losing the ability to prove what happened to data after it left their environment.

The moment control ends

Consider the typical sharing workflow:

• Email attachment: a claims adjuster sends supporting documentation to an external investigator. The file now exists in the investigator's inbox, on their device, potentially forwarded to others, with no mechanism for the insurer to revoke access or prove who viewed it

• Cloud share link: a solicitor creates a shared folder for disclosure documents. Opposing counsel downloads files. Those files can be altered, copied, redistributed. The original sender has no visibility into what happened after the initial share

  
  

• Data room export: a real estate asset manager provides due diligence documentation to potential buyers. Files are downloaded to buyer systems. The asset manager cannot prove which version each party accessed, when, or whether documents were modified

  
  

• Collaboration platform: A compliance team shares KYC documentation with external auditors. The auditors export files for their review processes. No audit trail persists outside the original platform.

  
  

In each case, control ends at the boundary. The organisation that originated the data cannot revoke access, cannot track subsequent use, and cannot prove integrity. If questions arise months later, in litigation, regulatory audit, or transaction disputes, there is no defensible record of what happened after sharing.

The compounding costs

This loss of control creates exposure that compounds over time:

Evidence disputes

Legal proceedings and insurance subrogation depend on proving chain of custody. When evidence has been shared via email or cloud links, demonstrating unbroken provenance becomes impossible. Opposing counsel challenges authenticity. Courts question evidence handling. Cases that should succeed on the merits instead fail on procedural grounds.

One senior litigation practitioner described the vulnerability:

"We shared disclosure with three expert witnesses across two firms. Eighteen months later, opposing counsel's expert report identifies metadata anomalies. We cannot prove which expert received which version of the documents, or when. Our chain of custody consists of email receipts that prove nothing about document integrity."

Regulatory exposure

Compliance frameworks increasingly require organisations to demonstrate systematic data handling. GDPR demands proof of data minimisation and access controls. The EU AI Act requires verified provenance for training data. DORA mandates governance of ICT supplier documentation. Financial services regulations require audit trails for KYC/KYB evidence.

When data is shared through uncontrolled methods, producing the required proof becomes impossible. Regulators see email forwards and cloud share links. They ask: "How do you prove data was accessed only by authorised parties? How do you demonstrate it was not modified after sharing? How do you revoke access when purposes expire?"

Without file-level governance, organisations cannot answer.

Competitive intelligence leakage

Real estate data rooms provide pricing intelligence to dozens of parties during transaction processes. Once deals close or fail, that intelligence circulates through the market. Rental assumptions, operating cost structures, and capital plans inform competing bids. The organisation that shared the data has no visibility into how information is used after initial access.

The same dynamic affects insurance claims intelligence, litigation strategy documents, and proprietary methodologies. Data shared for specific purposes becomes persistent market intelligence benefiting competitors and counterparties.

Uncontrolled data proliferation

Every email attachment, cloud download, and file export creates additional copies. Those copies are forwarded, downloaded again, stored on multiple devices. Version control becomes impossible. When updates occur, there is no mechanism to ensure all parties receive current information or that outdated versions are destroyed.

The result is data sprawl that multiplies security risk, compliance liability, and operational confusion.

The architectural solution

Solving the sharing paradox requires data-centric architecture that maintains governance across organisational boundaries. Rather than sending files, organisations can share through cryptographic access policies that bind to files regardless of location.

Zero-copy sharing ensures data never leaves the organisation's environment. External parties access files in place through policy-governed links. Every access is authenticated, logged, and governed by active permissions that can be revoked instantly even after sharing.

Cryptographic access policies specify who can access data, for what purpose, and for how long. Policies persist when files cross boundaries. A claims investigator might receive access to "Policy File A for fraud assessment until case closure." That policy travels with the data. When the case closes or the investigation concludes, access revokes automatically across all recipients.

Immutable audit trails record every interaction. When regulators ask "who accessed this compliance documentation?", organisations produce cryptographically verifiable records showing every accessor, timestamp, IP address, and access purpose. When litigation challenges chain of custody, tamper-proof audit trails prove exactly which expert accessed which version of documents, when, and under which governance authority.

Why this matters across sectors

The hidden cost of sharing affects every sector that depends on external collaboration:

• Insurance: claims evidence shared with investigators and counsel must maintain chain of custody through litigation. Uncontrolled sharing undermines recovery

• Legal: disclosure shared with opposing parties, experts, and courts requires provable integrity. Traditional methods create vulnerability opposing counsel exploits

• AI governance: training data shared with model developers and external providers must maintain verified provenance. Ungoverned sharing makes regulatory compliance impossible to demonstrate

• Real estate: transaction documentation shared across asset owners, managers, and potential buyers becomes persistent market intelligence. Zero-copy architecture prevents uncontrolled proliferation whilst maintaining audit trails

• Financial services: compliance evidence shared with regulators and auditors requires systematic governance. Email-based sharing cannot produce the proof frameworks demand.

  
  

The path forward

Organisations can continue sharing through traditional methods, accepting that control ends at the boundary, exposure compounds over time, and proof of systematic governance cannot be produced when needed.

Or they can adopt evidence integrity governance that makes sharing secure: cryptographic policies that persist across boundaries, zero-copy architecture that prevents proliferation, and immutable audit trails that prove what happened to data after sharing.

The question is not whether to share. Collaboration is essential. The question is whether to share whilst maintaining control, or to accept that control is lost the moment data crosses organisational boundaries.

The hidden cost of sharing is no longer hidden. The only question is whether to address it proactively or pay the price reactively when cases collapse, regulators demand proof, and competitive intelligence leaks undermine strategic advantage.

---

Share without losing control

See how zero-copy architecture and cryptographic policies maintain governance across boundaries.

Book a demo