Other ideas/suggestions

 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

One of my partners, Exakis, shared with the an improvement Idea for FPX (soon MPX). He said that when they export the Opportunities in an Excel file, the CPOR eligibility column does not exist, as it is in the Table view (before export). Instead, they have 2 columns: Claim ID and Claimed by Others (True/False). When the Claim ID is referenced- this means the partner has already a CPOR claim on that tenant. When the Claim ID is blank and the Claimed by Others shows “True”, it means there is a claim submitted by another partner. But When the Claim ID is blank, and Claimed by Others  shows “False”, in theory, there is a CPOR opportunity for the partner but additional verifications should be done by them to see if they can proceed with the CPOR claim. It can be that some workloads do not exist as they are mentioned in the Opportunities, to be further claimed. Example: DNR P1+P2, MIP P1+ P2, DLM P1+P2, etc. So it is not straight forward for them to identity a CPOR opportunity,Their ask is to have the same information/column in the Excel file export, CPOR eligibility (Yes/No).

Currently a user can filter the MPX data insights based on MCI eligibility being Yes or No. This is useful, however to improve targeting when partners are looking to drive a specific campaign it would be useful if they could have a more granular level of filtering on the MCI eligibility. For example, if the partner is looking to target Data Security as part of a wider AI readiness campaign, they may wish to filter the MPX data to see only customers who are eligible for the Data Security engagements.