Microsoft shows inconsistent data for the partners in PC which leads confusion and delays on partner end. An example, the partner has 5 certified people to achieve Copilot specialization. The numbers for example "Microsoft Applied Skills: Create agents in Microsoft Copilot Studio" are not the same across partner center. In skilling report for Copilot Advance Certification, is stated there are 3, in Training section of the Insights, there are 2 and when the skilling report is downloaded, this exam doesn't exist. The numbers are off across the partner center which slows down the process, confusing the partners and preventing them from having necessary certificates on time to proceed with business opportunities.  

With the rollout of ASPX to all partners, non-FastTrack partners now have access to the dashboard. While learning materials are available in the portal, GPS team members familiar with the platform have requested sessions for their partners by country/area.To avoid creating duplicate efforts for PSMs, a more efficient approach would be to organize a single webinar on how to use the dashboard. PSMs can then share the recording or link with GPS teams, ensuring all interested partners can access the training.

Partners have expressed concerns about the current performance measurement requirements in MCI engagements, particularly the expectation for customers to commit to license purchases before workshops are delivered. This creates hesitation among partners, who fear being penalized if the customer does not convert. As a result, some partners choose not to engage at all, missing opportunities to showcase the product and potentially influence customer decisions. To address this, would it be an option to allow 1–2 engagements per partner per year to be excluded from performance requirements? Maybe by adding criterias as can be used on education customers or the customers above x amount of seats. This would give partners the flexibility to deliver workshops to customers they believe have strong potential or genuine interest, even if those customers cannot confirm investment upfront, ultimately encouraging more proactive engagement and reducing missed opportunities.

The current MCI engagement guidelines do not provide clarity on scenarios where an engagement is cancelled after nomination but before delivery, or when payment has already been processed by the team. This ambiguity creates confusion for partners regarding whether such cancellations impact their performance metrics. To address this, the guide should explicitly outline these situations and confirm that partner performance will not be negatively affected when an engagement is cancelled under these circumstances. Clear guidance, including examples and FAQs, will help ensure transparency, prevent misinterpretation, and maintain partner confidence in the evaluation process.

The MCI guide outlines the steps required to validate an engagement; however, it does not specify at which point(customer nomination or customer consent) a workshop ceases to be eligible for other partners. Clarifying this would help partners understand the process when a customer is associated with another partner. It would also assist partners and internal teams in determining whether an issue is due to a system error or because another partner has already initiated the engagement, particularly in cases where an engagement initially appears eligible but then becomes ineligible.

Previously, partners had access to a dashboard during the EA Security information for CSI workshops. This allowed them to track when a customer was ready for Milestone 2 and estimate potential earnings to plan the next steps in the customer roadmap. However, since CSI has been integrated with MCI, partners no longer have visibility into when a customer becomes eligible for Milestone 2.The guide needs to be updated to clarify what the trigger is whether it’s the customer’s signature, the assignment of licenses, or another event, especially since there can sometimes be a buffer period. Understanding this trigger is critical for partners to prepare the roadmap and avoid delays in moving to the next steps.

General Observation:There is some perceived overlap and emerging competition between ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and to a lesser extent, Google Gemini. However, the use cases and user experiences differ significantly.1. Adoption & Usage PatternsShadow AI:Many organizations see employees using ChatGPT privately or professionally (so-called “Shadow AI”). This happens regardless of corporate policy and can affect Copilot adoption rates.Organizational Deployment:Some organizations experiment with a company-wide version of ChatGPT or a “local” deployment. This group is smaller but visible.2. User Experience DifferencesChatGPT:Perceived as better tuned to users — feels more natural and intuitive.Users appreciate that ChatGPT remembers context and history, which makes workflows smoother.The textual output quality (especially rewritten or summarized texts) is often considered more elegant and better phrased.Copilot:Users find it less fluid, as it doesn’t remember context beyond the immediate prompt — each item must be provided manually.The integration with Microsoft data (e.g., Outlook, Teams, SharePoint) is seen as a huge advantage, but still developing.The RAI principles and enterprise data safeguards make the product feel more secure and compliant, which users appreciate for corporate environments.3. Competitive LandscapeGemini:Some awareness of Gemini rising as another player, but limited direct experience or impact so far.Overall Perception:Users view ChatGPT as stronger in language generation and “creative” use cases, while Copilot is recognized as more governed, secure, and enterprise-ready, though still maturing in flexibility and contextual understanding.4. Individual Remarks“ChatGPT is textually stronger; its rewritten outputs are more beautiful and refined.”“Copilot still needs to build up the same level of contextual memory that ChatGPT already has.”“Integration between ChatGPT and Microsoft data is accelerating — in principle, it could soon do the same as Copilot.”

On ASPX, we include the workloads leading to upsell which are defined by relevant teams and Windows 365 is not there yet. Based on the information from Michel Roth (Michel.Roth@microsoft.com) who is a Senior Specialist and EMEA Virtualization Scale leader at Microsoft, deeply involved in partner scale motions, Windows 365, Cloud Endpoint, and FastTrack alignment, and frequently collaborates with partners and field teams across the region, the most successful sales motion in Windows365 is to first land a small Windows365 deployment and land and expand from there. Therefore, it'd be a good option to discuss mentioned enhancement on ASPX.