We have three tools, so three different

answers for basically every number that matters for us. Salesforce says we closed 42 deals last quarter. Hubspot attribution says marketing influenced 38 of those. Then our cs team pulls from gainsight and only 35 accounts show as successfully onboarded. So when leadership asks for something as simple as a win rate, whoever answers first sets the "truth" and everyone else looks wrong.The real problem isn't the tools themselves, it's that each team built their own definitions over time. A "closed deal" in salesforce doesn't map cleanly to a "converted customer" in hubspot doesn't map cleanly to an "active account" in gainsight. The differences are subtle enough that nobody noticed until we tried to reconcile everything in one report. Then it all falls apart.We've been working on pulling all three into a warehouse using precog so we can write the metric logic once and apply it consistently regardless of which source system the data came from. That part is going okay. The part that's way harder than expected is getting sales, marketing, and cs to agree on shared definitions. Everyone is protective of their numbers because those numbers drive their team's performance reviews. So getting alignment is as much a political problem as a data integration problem.