[Translated]
If the FRP registration of a company A is switched from another company to our company,
In addition, if you switch from our company to another company,

You can see service notes entered by other companies, or you can see our information.

Can't we improve here?

I think that it is good to see all the data as your company,

Information between partners is getting stuck.

--
あるA社のFRP登録が他社から弊社に切替となった場合、
また弊社から他社に切替となった場合、
他社が入力したサービスノーツが見れてしまう、または弊社情報がみられてしまう状況です。
ここは改善いただけないものでしょうか。
貴社としては全データがみれて良いのかと思いますが、
パートナー間の情報が駄々洩れになってしまっている状況です。

[Translated] Power BI is currently covered by FastTrack.
In addition to Power BI, Power Platform
I want you to add it to the privilege target.
Best regards.

--

現在Power BIが、FastTrackの対象となっています。
Power BIだけでなく、Power Platfrom を FastTrack の
特典対象に追加して欲しいです。
よろしくお願いいたします。

We love the focus on referrals for OneDrive for Business, but we received some regular FastTrack Referrals that should be Non Incentive Referrals instead.

As example: we received a regular referral for a customer in size Extra Small for ODFB. We already deployed SharePoint Online, so there would be no incentive for this left. The customer was asking for file migration to ODFB, but the customer is not eligible for the Migration Benefit.

We would like to understand why the RFA Gateway is approving such RFA and send this as regular referral. We understand that some areas around RFAs/Non-Incentive RFAs are a little cloudy woul dlike to have documentation that outlines and confirms the conditions that a RFA must meet, in order to be considered as a Request for Assistance, as opposed to a Non-Incentive Referral.

So two questions:
1. Are there any other FRP's facing this unclear situation?
2. Could MSFT share documentation that outlines and confirms the RFA conditions?

[Translated] Currently, with Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Hub, I'm looking into FastTrack.
However, items that are supported in Japanese are FastTrack Playbook and Operations Guide are few and far between. I want to have a better understanding of FastTrack. To that end, including FastTrack Ready Partner academy, Please support Japanese content for items that do not yet support Japanese content.
--
現在、Microsoft 365 Specialty Partner Hubを利用して、
FastTrackについて調べています。
しかし、日本語対応されている項目が、
FastTrack PlaybookとOperations Guideと少ないと思っています。
私は、FastTrackについての理解をより深めたいと考えています。
そのために、FastTrack Ready Partner Academyをはじめとした、
まだ日本語対応していない項目の日本語対応をお願いいたします。

I was recently told that if I want to view the usage data from FTOP for sub-workloads for Teams Meeting, Phone Systems & Apps/Plat within FTOP I need to submit a CPOR claim for 'Teams Only'.  When will the workloads for Teams Meeting, Phone Systems & Apps/Plat flow into FTOP without having to also select 'Teams Only'?

I have seen some data missing in recent reports (random workloads) missing once data exported.  I take daily drops of the data for my own reporting and have seen this only this week.

CPOR申請が他パートナーからも同様の申請があったとの連絡いただいた際、下記のコメントをいただきましたが、日本の方に対して資料を全て英訳しする必要がなぜあるのでしょうか？

【事務局コメント】
申請頂きました本件に対して、他のパートナー様からも同製品/ワークロードの申請がございます。
本社の審査部門にて審査いたしますので、同意書および資料の英訳版を14日以内にご提出ください。

【CPOR申請】
ID: 1168652
件名:国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所様向けMicrosoft 365導入支援(FastTrack)TEAMS PLATFORM再申請

I love that we have additional fields (QE/AE/AU at time of claim) and we have the new workloads (MIP, Teams Meetings, etc.) in the Performance by Usage Milestone tab!!  However...... I would like to request we add the bucket size back to this report please.  The Bucket Size field is quite useful for quickly identifying incentive amounts and forecasting. 

This has been on my radar for a while now, as I imagine it will be for many FRPS. 

The current EMS/0365 Remediation Checklist which is accessed via the playbook, is now out of date. The dates/references are in the last year. 

They do not contain any of the new workloads which have been introduced by the program. 

Is there any guidance, on when refreshed Remediation Checklists will be released to partners?

Previous Post on Yammer:

We thought we should share this with the rest of the partner community. We have raised a ticket in relation to this issue with FRPhelp and the data and Tools team is reviewing the following.

We have found that the S2500 customers are being identified or tracked using TPID. The problem is in a scenario where multiple customers share the same TPID, all of these customers are being flagged as S2500 customer. For example, we currently have one S2500 customer in an industry vertical and as it shares the same TPID with 15 other tenants, they are all being flagged as an S2500. We have reached out to most of the accounts team and got confirmation from them that not all of them are considered S2500 customers, rather the parent tenant is the S2500 customer.

We know we are not being measured on this currently, however, the non S2500 customers are skewing the data health results and also creating a bit of confusion on who the actual S2500 customers. In our opinion, FTOP should not be flagging child tenants of S2500 customers as a 'S2500' customer.