I agree with the premise, in fact, I’d push it further. Touching the data helps. It builds judgment. What it does not do is fix the upstream failures that make analytics and AI fragile in the first place: vocabulary debt, weak intake design, drifting definitions, and invisible decision logic buried in workflows. That is why so many teams can inspect the rows and still produce theater. Real confidence comes when row-level familiarity sits on top of operational grounding.
Great points, @Ankita Chatrath. Like you said, that judgement is critical - that familiarity with the data (and what it is reporting on) signals a surprising amount of the time that something is off and it’s time to dig deeper. There should be a job title for “Data Detective.”
I agree with the premise, in fact, I’d push it further. Touching the data helps. It builds judgment. What it does not do is fix the upstream failures that make analytics and AI fragile in the first place: vocabulary debt, weak intake design, drifting definitions, and invisible decision logic buried in workflows. That is why so many teams can inspect the rows and still produce theater. Real confidence comes when row-level familiarity sits on top of operational grounding.
Great points, @Ankita Chatrath. Like you said, that judgement is critical - that familiarity with the data (and what it is reporting on) signals a surprising amount of the time that something is off and it’s time to dig deeper. There should be a job title for “Data Detective.”