Sr. Data Modeler

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role? Actually the posting includes Company Description, Job Description, What you will do, Qualifications, Additional Information. We need to use headings:

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). We must not repeat job title as heading. We need to include sections only when posting has real specific content. We need to preserve all substantive info, not invent or summarize away detail. Remove boilerplate: cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, application instructions. Also remove equal opportunity statements etc. Also remove "Additional Information" maybe includes some legal stuff; we need to keep substantive info like selection process, accommodation request, pay range statement? The instructions: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Also "Include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text (e.g. 'commensurate with experience', 'not specified', 'N/A', 'varies', 'TBD') and never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." We have no explicit Pay, Schedule, Benefits statements. There's a statement about compensation: "VERSANT Media is committed to fair and equitable compensation practices. We include a good faith pay range for each position to comply with applicable state and local pay transparency laws and to promote equity across our organization. Actual compensation will be based on factors such as the candidate's skills, qualifications, experience, and location and may include additional forms of compensation and benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, etc." This is generic but mentions benefits. It's not a specific pay range. It's somewhat generic but still mentions benefits. Should we include a Benefits section? The instruction says never create Benefits sections unless posting actually states them. It does mention benefits generically: health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off. That's a statement of benefits. So we could include a Benefits section with that content. However it's somewhat generic but still substantive. I'd include a Benefits

• items. Pay: they mention they include a good faith pay range but not actual numbers. That's not a specific pay range; it's placeholder. According to rule: never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text like "commensurate with experience", "not specified", "N/A", "varies", "TBD". "good faith pay range" is not a specific number; it's vague. Might be considered placeholder. Safer to omit Pay section. Schedule: not mentioned. Thus sections: About the role? Could be Company Description? The instruction says use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. But we can also use other headings? It says use

  for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It implies those are examples; we can use those headings if appropriate. The posting has sections: Company Description, Job Description, What you will do (Responsibilities), Qualifications (Required qualifications, Preferred Qualifications), Additional Information (maybe Benefits). We could map: - About the role: could combine Company Description and Job Description overview? But we need to preserve all substantive info; we could have a section "About the role" containing the company description and job description summary? However we must not invent or summarize away detail. If we combine, we might lose detail? We could keep them as separate sections: maybe "About the company" not in list but we can still use

  for any heading; the instruction says use

  for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests using those. Safer to use those headings where applicable. We have Responsibilities: "What you will do" section. We have Requirements: could be Qualifications (Required). Could also have Skills: maybe from qualifications. We have Qualifications: we could have a section "Qualifications" containing both required and preferred. We have Benefits: from Additional Information. We could also have "About the role" containing company description and maybe high-level job description. But we already have Responsibilities; maybe we can put company description under "About the role". That would be okay. We must not repeat job title as heading. So we won't. We need to remove boilerplate: EEO statements, accommodation request, pay range statement? Actually we might keep the benefits statement but remove the EEO and accommodation request lines. Also remove "As part of our selection process, external candidates may be required to attend an in-person interview..." That's substantive? It's about selection process; maybe we keep it under Additional Information? But it's not a standard heading; we could include it under "About the role" or a separate section like "Selection process". But instruction only mentions those example headings; but we can still create other headings if needed? It says use

  for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't say we cannot use other headings, but to follow the pattern we could stick to those. The selection process statement is substantive; we could include it under "About the role" or maybe under "Additional Information". Since we already have Benefits, we could add a subsection? But we must output only HTML fragment; we can include

  paragraphs. Thus plan:

  About the role

  Company description paragraph(s) + maybe high-level job description.

  Responsibilities

  • ... each bullet from "What you will do"

  Requirements

  • ... required qualifications bullet points

  Skills

  • ... maybe from preferred qualifications? Or we could combine preferred qualifications under Skills.

  Qualifications

  Maybe we don't need both Requirements and Skills and Qualifications; but we can follow instruction to prefer few substantive sections. Could combine Required and Preferred under Qualifications. But we have separate headings for Requirements and Skills; we could use Requirements for required qualifications, Skills for preferred qualifications, and maybe omit Qualifications heading. However we need to preserve all info; we can put required under Requirements, preferred under Skills. But we also have "Additional Information" containing benefits and selection process and accommodation request etc. We'll keep benefits under Benefits heading, and maybe selection process under About the role? Or we could add a separate section "Additional Information" but not in list; but instruction says use those headings as examples; we could still use

  Additional Information

  but it's not in the list; maybe better to incorporate into Benefits and maybe a short paragraph under About the role. Let's extract content. Company Description paragraph: "VERSANT is a leading force in news, sports and entertainment - home to iconic and trusted brands that inspire, inform, and delight audiences. Our unique combination of content, technology and services enriches the cultural fabric, igniting passions, sparking conversations, and connecting people to what they love most. As an independent, publicly traded company, VERSANT brings together powerhouse cable networks - including USA Network, CNBC, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), Oxygen, E!, SYFY, and Golf Channel - with dynamic digital and direct-to-consumer brands such as Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, GolfNow, GolfPass, and SportsEngine. Together, these businesses reflect our commitment to delivering exceptional experiences across every screen and service. VERSANT is an industry-changing media company fueled by innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit. With a strong foundation and a forward-looking vision, VERSANT empowers creativity, embraces change, and drives connection in an ever-evolving world." Job Description overview (first paragraph before "What you will do"): "We are seeking a Senior Data Modeler to define, evolve, and govern our enterprise-wide North Star Data Model. This role will make data consistent, interoperable, discoverable, and reusable across business domains, products, analytics, and AI use cases. The Senior Data Modeler will work with Product, domain experts, Data Engineering, Analytics, Architecture, Governance, and Security to translate business concepts into a shared enterprise data language and practical models that teams can implement across the Bronze, Silver, and Gold layers of our data platform. This is not a role focused only on designing tables for individual projects. It owns the connective tissue between domain models: the common entities, identifiers, relationships, definitions, metadata, and standards that allow trusted data products to work together across the enterprise." We can combine these under About the role. Now Responsibilities: list from "What you will do" bullet points (though they are paragraphs). We need to extract each duty as list items. Let's parse: - Establish the enterprise North Star Data Model - Define and maintain enterprise conceptual, logical, and physical data models across core business domains. - Establish canonical business entities, shared dimensions, reference data, identifiers, relationships, and lifecycle states. - Create a pragmatic model that supports domain autonomy while enabling cross-domain analysis and data sharing. - Maintain an enterprise ontology, business glossary, and semantic definitions so that important terms and metrics mean the same thing across products and teams. - Design for reuse, extensibility, regional variation, and future use cases while avoiding unnecessary centralization. - Model the Bronze, Silver, and Gold data layers - Define modeling principles and required artifacts for each layer: Bronze: Preserve source fidelity, source lineage, ingestion metadata, auditability, and raw-data contracts. Silver: Standardize and validate data; apply common identifiers, canonical entities, conformed dimensions, data-quality rules, and cross-domain integration patterns. Gold: Deliver governed, business-ready data products, semantic models, certified metrics, and analytics-ready structures for dashboards, self-service analysis, and AI. - Ensure traceability from Gold metrics and business concepts back through Silver transformations to authoritative Bronze sources. - Define clear rules for when a concept belongs in a domain model, the shared enterprise model, a semantic layer, or a product-specific analytical model. - Review and guide physical implementations for performance, maintainability, cost, privacy, and scale. - Enable data products and delivery teams - Partner with Product Managers and domain leaders to turn business outcomes and use cases into clear data-modeling requirements. - Partner with Data Engineers to define schemas, transformations, mappings, data contracts, and implementation patterns. - Partner with BI developers to create governed semantic models, reusable measures, and self-service-ready datasets. - Facilitate architecture and design reviews; identify duplication, inconsistent definitions, broken lineage, and integration risk early. - Provide model patterns, templates, and coaching that enable teams to deliver independently while following enterprise standards. - Govern for trust, security, and global scale - Embed data quality, lineage, ownership, retention, security classification, privacy-by-design, and access-control requirements into data-model designs. - Model regional, regulatory, language, currency, and local-business variations without fragmenting global reporting or shared concepts. - Define stewardship and decision rights for enterprise entities, metrics, and reference data. - Maintain model documentation and metadata in the organization’s data catalog and modeling tools. - Measure adoption, reuse, quality, coverage, and exceptions to drive continual improvement of the North Star model. We can turn each top-level bullet into a
• maybe with sub-bullets? But we only need
  • for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. Could flatten: each sentence as
  • . Simpler: produce a list of responsibilities as separate
  • items, each being a duty. We'll produce a list of items: - Establish the enterprise North Star Data Model: define and maintain enterprise conceptual, logical, and physical data models across core business domains; establish canonical business entities, shared dimensions, reference data, identifiers, relationships, and lifecycle