Hi Glen,
Yes, you correctly understood my proposal. I would like to share two other suggestions.
Note that you need clear architecture and development guidelines to standardize the data flow patterns. This is of course not new for LSA++. I advice you to develop data flow templates (please see my blog Standardizing Data Flow Patterns using Data Flow Templates for an idea).
For each "use case" which requires a data flow template, you have to think well how "heavy" or "light" the data flow must become in terms of persistent storage. This means often a trade-off. On one hand we should prevent uncontrolled redundancy. On the other hand we might need some redundancy, e.g. a Corporate Memory since the data is so important. Or we have to harmonize and cleanse data which we cannot do "on the fly".
If you choose for Corporate Memory, then do I really need storage in the Open ODS layer? There are different choices you can make and to avoid a future chaos, you need guidelines and standards.
Another remark can be made for data retention periods and storage. You have to think well for which period of time you are going to store the data. It will depend on where you store data (in-memory or not) and if you store the data more than once (e.g. a Corporate Memory). You will also have to involve the Business Users to define guidelines and standards for data and their data retention periods.
Last but not least, your discussion shows that an easy question like this can have different answers. LSA++ offers quite high-level architecture guidelines which can lead to different interpretations and implementation approaches. You have to translate the LSA++ reference architecture into your own company's LSA++ architecture guidelines and development standards.
Best regards,
Sander