We are obsessed with data accuracy.
A number needs a definition, a grain, and a route back to its sources. We put those into the models, tests, and documentation. We investigate exceptions and make unresolved differences visible, so a passing job is never the only evidence that the data is useful.
The business question comes first.
We ask what people need to decide and where the current system gets in their way. Finance, operations, and product may see different parts of the problem. Their answers shape the scope. If a smaller repair serves the business better than a rebuild, we recommend it.
Efficiency belongs in the design.
We examine model grain, joins, dependencies, and the work repeated on each run. Incremental processing and appropriate materialization can keep compute and maintenance proportionate to the job. We test those choices against expected volume and changing business logic.
Automation needs a recovery path.
We define what should happen when a source arrives late, a schema changes, or a test fails. Alerts need an owner; retries need safeguards against duplicate work. Handover includes the logic, the failure cases, and the steps to recover.
Privacy shapes what we build.
We question which fields are needed, who needs access, and where sensitive values could appear. We limit access, use test records without personal details, and keep sensitive values out of logs. Retention and provider choices must be agreed for the actual engagement.