As a data engineer myself, totally agree about the abuse of the word “data”. What we strived for when naming was to make it self-describing as much as possible. Since the tool does one thing - diff datasets - we could name it “dataset diff” but that seemed more clunky. “table diff” wouldn’t work since we’re working on adding APIs (e.g. Stripe) as a data source to make validation of API-to-database syncs possible, and that goes beyond just tables. There is always an option to give a nondiscriptive or metaphorical name but we were concerned that would make the tool far less discoverable by potential users.