Delivered — dated delivery record and client correspondence on file (EPC-reported; documents private)First-pass editionAn industrial construction contractor (client not named) · 2026 · Project ID EPC-2026-ANON-CONSTR-PBIFABRIC

Last updated October 25, 2026 by Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group

Opening answer. An industrial construction contractor runs its weld quality (QA/QC) and project-controls reporting in Power BI. The reports draw on two outside systems, a weld-tracking system and a project-controls system, through an Azure Synapse data warehouse. Between January and August 2026 EPC Group:

rebuilt and reconciled the Power BI reports on a warehouse connected end to end
carried new fields through the weld data path
moved both integrations from Azure Synapse to a Microsoft Fabric warehouse
set up access and release management for the reporting team

Disclosure. This is an EPC-reported anonymized engagement summary. The client is not named, and neither are the third-party systems involved. The supporting records — the executed statement of work, the dated monthly delivery record and the client correspondence that corroborates it — are retained privately and are not published in the Evidence Center, so this account is outside the Evidence Center's documented-engagement counts. Every engagement fact below is taken from those documents.

Verification class

Delivered — dated delivery record and client correspondence on file (EPC-reported; documents private). The statement of work was executed in November 2025. The delivery record lists, month by month, what each team member delivered from December 2025 to August 2026. Where engineering task logs are missing (January, July and August 2026), the record is rebuilt from dated client correspondence. No client acceptance form or business-outcome measurement is claimed.

Buyer problem and scope

Item	What the documents state
Buyer	An industrial construction contractor (client not named); stakeholders in IT, the PMO and Project Controls
Situation	Weld, welder and inspection data from a weld-tracking system and budget data from a project-controls system, integrated through an Azure Synapse warehouse feeding Power BI. A legacy data warehouse was being phased out, a job-naming change was underway across the estate, and reports needed new fields
Workstreams	The two data integrations; the migration of both from Azure Synapse to Microsoft Fabric; the Power BI reporting estate on top of them
Reporting assets	Six built, migrated or rebuilt: a QA/QC report, an executive report, an audit report, a PMO weld dashboard, a weld-data report and a project control budget allocation report

Unknowns, not stated in the documents cited: user counts, data volumes, and any change in inspection or project-control outcomes attributable to the reporting.

Approach and artifacts

Fix the warehouse before the report. When the client asked for joint location on the reports, the field could not simply be added in Power BI. It was carried from the weld-tracking source through:

the configuration query and staging
the weld dimension
the stored procedures and pipelines
the reporting layer

A weld classification field went the same way in February. A new defect column followed in June, through staging, the inspection fact table, stored procedures and pipelines, and was then replicated into Fabric.

Rebuild, then reconcile. In February the warehouse was connected end to end. The weld, welder and inspection datasets were validated against source in sequence, and the QA/QC report was rebuilt: relationships, DAX logic, validation, then publish and functional checks. In March the executive report was reconciled against the QA/QC report, and all three major reports were confirmed to match. Refresh failures were diagnosed and fixed in the same month. When the client raised discrepancies — inspection counts, combined versus classified welds, weld-inch totals — each was worked against the client's verified numbers and closed with the fix confirmed.

Synapse to Fabric without stopping the reports. The Fabric warehouse was provisioned. Both integrations' schemas and stored procedures were migrated, with staging, dimension and fact pipelines built and tested end to end. Fabric stored-procedure compatibility issues were resolved at each stage. Capacity was procured and assigned, and a target-state architecture covering both integrations and future sources was issued to the client in April. Changes made in Synapse during the transition were replicated into Fabric.

A third-party dependency, handled in the open. The project-controls integration needed view definitions that turned out to be encrypted and permission-restricted. EPC Group established that, re-raised the request with the client's vendor in May, and the definitions arrived in July. Once they did, five more control-budget tables were staged and new KPI columns were added to the control-budget fact table for the PMO.

Access and release management. A Power BI deployment pipeline was proposed and tested across three stages with a dedicated workspace. A service principal and security group were created for warehouse access, tested through Power BI and handed to the reporting team. When a weld dashboard went blank in June, the cause was traced to a pipeline failure, fixed, and documented in a root-cause analysis.

Work products and record (dated, held privately):

Item	Date
Executed statement of work	November 2025
Written response to the client's year-end priorities (legacy warehouse phase-out, cost management, dashboard validation sequence)	December 2025
Control-budget dimensional model review with the PMO and Project Controls	January 2026
Rebuilt QA/QC, executive and audit reports; three-report reconciliation	February–March 2026
Fabric migration strategy, then the Fabric architecture issued to the client	February; April 2026
Fabric staging, dimension and fact pipelines, tested end to end	March–April 2026
Power BI delivery report; deployment-pipeline proposal	May 2026
Dashboard outage root-cause analysis; warehouse service principal and security group	June 2026
PMO weld dashboard layout approved after client review rounds; self-service sandbox walkthrough	July 2026

Results and limitations

Claim	Basis	Status
Six reporting assets built, migrated or rebuilt and validated against source	Delivery record	Delivered (EPC-reported; documents private)
The three major reports reconciled against one another and confirmed to match	Delivery record, March 2026	Delivered (EPC-reported)
Both integrations built and tested end to end in a Fabric warehouse	Delivery record, April 2026	Delivered (EPC-reported)
PMO weld dashboard layout approved by the client	Client correspondence, July 10, 2026	On file (EPC-reported)
Business outcomes such as fewer weld defects or faster reporting	No document cited	Not claimed

Provenance

Sources: the executed statement of work (November 2025), the monthly delivery record (December 2025 – August 2026) and the client correspondence that corroborates it, held privately. Engagement ID: EPC-2026-ANON-CONSTR-PBIFABRIC, an alias unrelated to the client's name.
Anonymization: industry only, under EPC Group's anonymized-case rule; the client, its third-party systems and vendors, locations, staff names and commercial terms are not published.
Not claimed: client endorsement, or any measured business result.
Author: Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group, who set the target-state architecture and approved the warehouse security model on this engagement.

Revision history

2026-10-25: anonymized engagement summary published from the engagement's statement of work and delivery record.

Author: Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group · Published: 2026-10-25.

Anonymized engagement summary: Power BI weld quality and project-controls reporting, rebuilt on Microsoft Fabric, for an industrial construction contractor (2026)