Data people are willing to act on
Most dashboards are ignored because nobody agrees what the numbers mean. We fix the definitions and the plumbing first, then build the reporting worth arguing over.
Three things teams bring us data work for
Agree what the numbers mean
Two teams reporting different revenue is a definition problem, not a tooling problem. We settle the definitions in writing before touching a pipeline.
→A metric dictionary owned by the business, not the tool→One agreed source of truth per number→Every definition traced to the event behind it→Known discrepancies documented rather than hidden→Sign-off from the people who report upwardBuild plumbing that holds
Pipelines fail quietly, which is worse than failing loudly. We build ingestion and modelling that tells you when it has gone wrong.
→Event tracking designed against the metric dictionary→Warehouse models in version control, applied in CI→Freshness and volume tests on every source→Alerting when a pipeline silently stops→Access governed by role, enforced in the databaseReport what drives decisions
A dashboard is a tool for a decision. We build the small number of views someone actually opens on a Monday, and retire the rest.
→One view per decision, with an owner→Numbers that reconcile against finance→Self-serve where the questions repeat→Old dashboards retired, not left to rot→Training so the team reads it the same wayBook a call →A number nobody trusts is worse than no number
Trust is the whole product here. Every metric we ship reconciles against a source the business already believes, and where it cannot, we say so in writing rather than quietly rounding.
What we build it on
A short, deliberate list — each in production on a system we maintain. See the full partner stack.
Clients we work with
Data case studies
What we will not do
Most data briefs start at the dashboard and skip the definitions. These are the ones we hand back.
$./data-audit→