Other ideas/suggestions

It would useful when looking at the Copilot tab to see if the customer is an E3, E5 or E5 Expansion opportunity as well, and their Healthy/Unhealthy status for Secure Productivity. Whilst this can be obtained from the other tabs, currently as a partner you have to flick between the Copilot and Secure Productivity tabs or you need to have two different browser tabs open to see this information at the same time. When assessing an opportunity in the Copilot tab it would really help provide additional context to the partner on the other opportunity space from a Secure Productivity perspective as that will help shape the conversation they position with the customer. For example, if a customer appears as an opportunity to drive Copilot but actually they're not completely healthy from a Secure Productivity perspective (i.e. Unhealthy or At Risk) then that may become something that is factored into the overall positioning with the customer. Having that single pain of glass view would be very useful without having to switch between tabs all the time or have multiple windows open. 

The partner list currently displayed in PSM Scorecard does not reflect the FY26 assignments. This discrepancy may lead to confusion in planning and reporting

Despite being added last week, the latest insights and customer success stories are still not appearing in the report.

The reported number of MCI workshops is inconsistent with the field reporting count. This misalignment could impact performance tracking and resource allocation - example - Security LXP Dashboard - Power BI

Context:During the meeting, Leopoldo raised the topic of Sentinel for SAP, noting that many customers in Mexico and Latin America run SAP workloads on Azure or other clouds. There is uncertainty about the availability and effectiveness of partners who can deliver Sentinel for SAP solutions, and no clear customer demand or partner expertise was identified in the discussion. 1 2Problem Statement:There is a lack of visibility and partner capability for deploying and supporting Sentinel for SAP in the region. Enterprise sellers have reported a gap in qualified partners for Sentinel for SAP, which may limit Microsoft’s ability to address security needs for SAP environments and capture potential migration opportunities.Ask:Request engineering and partner teams to:Assess current partner readiness and expertise for Sentinel for SAP in Latin America.Identify and recommend partners with proven capabilities or interest in developing Sentinel for SAP solutions.Share best practices, enablement resources, and customer success stories to help build partner capacity and drive customer adoption for SAP security on Azure. 

Type: GTM Program Feedback: Partner PerformanceMeeting: Secure AI Productivity Feedback (Aug 27, 2025)Summary: Procurement cycles for large/government clients often exceed 12 months, making current incentive timelines misaligned.Recommendation: Extend milestone period to 18 months or introduce a grace period.

Type: FastTrack Regional Program ExecutionMeeting: FTA Brazil – FRP Alignment (Aug 26, 2025)Summary: Partners support multiple clients with limited Microsoft resources; scope and SLA clarity is needed.Recommendation: Define Partner assisted FTA scope and engagement expectations, including SLA expectations

Easier visibility of licensing and renewal information in MPX. Beyondsoft’s revenue is ~98–99% services with very little CSP, so they lack license/renewal signals and must rely on customer relationship for intel. I walked them through where to click into tenant licenses and dates, but BYS flagged this as a structural visibility gap.

The FastTrack Service description should be clear of partner obligations surrounding FY26 partner obligations on ADG's and delivery of the benefit. This can be confusing to customers and injects potential conflict when working with customers who's misalignment in the benefit description and partner obligation. Partner also needs to understand obligation to resource their team to align with new obligations. 

 Partner shared pain point when training internal teams on various propensity tools: SPARK, CloudAscent,  LightHouse, & MPX on wording/descriptions, noticing that our GTM resources & Learn article descriptions of the tools can be misleading in wording insinuating net "new" customer propensity versus "existing" partner- customer propensity.  While our data propensity models are referring to opportunities exposed within a partners existing associated customer base, our GTM PB/learn doc refer to terminology such as customer "acquisition", and "prospect"  which can imply there being net new logo propensity data. This can cause confusion for customers when training internal teams, sellers, alliance managers, or when presenting to leadership internally and can require mismanagement of expectations.  Attachments  Referring to:CloudAscent Partner Center Learn Portal - Partner Center | Microsoft LearnSPARK Propensity in Partner Center Insights - Partner Center | Microsoft LearnFY26-Security-Commercial-Partner-Playbook (5).pdf