Oracle Database on Azure: A Practical Multicloud AI and Analytics Blueprint

Oracle and Microsoft’s evolving multicloud play is no longer just a strategic press release — it’s an operational blueprint enterprises are using today to combine Oracle’s mission‑critical database capabilities with Azure’s AI, analytics, and governance stack. Recent announcements and product updates deliver tighter co‑location of Oracle database services inside Azure datacenters, native data replication into Microsoft Fabric/OneLake, integrated key management via Azure Key Vault, and a new AI‑native Oracle database family designed to natively power lakehouse and vector workloads. The result is a practical, low‑latency pipeline for bringing transactional Oracle data into Azure analytics and AI surfaces — but it also creates new operational, contractual, and governance responsibilities that IT teams must validate before they go all‑in.

Background / Overview​

Enterprises have operated complex Oracle estates for decades. Moving those workloads to public cloud — or making them interoperable with cloud AI services — has historically meant expensive re‑engineering, high operational risk, or loss of enterprise database features. The joint Oracle–Microsoft approach reframes that choice: run Oracle Database services (Exadata, Autonomous, Base DB) on Oracle‑managed infrastructure placed physically inside Azure datacenters, then allow Azure services (Microsoft Fabric, Power BI, Azure AI, Copilot Studio) to access that data with low latency and enterprise controls.
This is more than marketing. The vendors have shipped concrete capabilities that address the three most common blockers for enterprise AI and analytics:

• Data locality and latency for transactional workloads.
• Secure, auditable key and identity management.
• Near‑real‑time movement of trusted operational data into analytics and lakehouse formats.

The materials you provided — a co‑hosted Express Computer / Oracle briefing and related vendor write‑ups — describe this practical stack and show how customers are starting to use it in production. Those core themes are corroborated by vendor documentation and engineering blogs that detail the exact features now available.

---

What was announced and why it matters​

Major product and program highlights​

• Oracle Database@Azure (Oracle‑managed databases inside Azure): Expanded regional footprint and multiple service choices (Exadata Database Service, Autonomous AI Database, Base Database Service). The offering places Oracle database infrastructure in Azure data centers while Oracle keeps operational control.
• Oracle AI Database (26ai) and Autonomous AI Lakehouse: Oracle launched an AI‑native database release that natively supports vector search, agentic AI workflows, and the Apache Iceberg open table format for lakehouse tables — enabling interoperability with Databricks, Snowflake and Microsoft Fabric/OneLake. Oracle positions Autonomous AI Lakehouse as an enterprise lakehouse built on Iceberg to reduce ETL friction.
• Real‑time replication and open mirroring into Microsoft Fabric / OneLake: Oracle’s GoldenGate has been extended to support open mirroring into Microsoft Fabric’s mirrored databases and OneLake landing zones, enabling near‑real‑time replicas of Oracle tables in Delta/Parquet formats for analytics and AI. Microsoft’s Open Mirroring design makes OneLake a first‑class destination for change data capture (CDC) streams.
• Azure Key Vault integration for TDE keys: Customers can store and manage Oracle Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) master keys in Azure Key Vault (Standard, Premium, or Managed HSM). This centralizes cryptographic control inside Azure while Oracle databases use those keys for data‑at‑rest protection. Both Microsoft documentation and Oracle posts describe configuration, key migration, and best practices.
• Security and governance stack integration: Oracle Database@Azure now advertises deep interoperability with Microsoft Entra ID, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Microsoft Sentinel, and Microsoft Purview, creating an end‑to‑end security and governance path from identity through detection to data classification and lineage.

Why this matters: enterprises can now build applications that combine Oracle’s transactional integrity and database features with Azure’s analytics and AI without wholesale data migration or application rewrites. That reduces time‑to‑value for analytics and AI projects while keeping existing SLAs, high‑availability features (RAC, Data Guard), and Oracle‑specific behavior intact.

---

Technical deep dive: how the pieces fit​

Co‑location and low‑latency access​

Oracle installs and manages Exadata‑class and Oracle database services on OCI infrastructure physically colocated in Azure datacenters. This co‑location uses private interconnects (FastConnect + ExpressRoute in government/regulated scenarios) to keep latency low, which is essential for chatty transactional workloads and near‑real‑time inference. For regulated government deployments, specialized interconnects and FedRAMP/AZ‑gov region pairings are supported to maintain compliance. The operational model preserves Oracle control planes (patching, RAC, Data Guard) while enabling Azure tooling to see and interact with the database as a native service. That hybrid operational boundary is important: Oracle remains responsible for the database service layer, while Azure provides the compute/AI front end and unified governance/identity.

Data movement: GoldenGate, Open Mirroring, and OneLake​

The modern pattern for analytics and AI is not batch ETL but continuous CDC. Oracle GoldenGate has been extended to support Open Mirroring into Microsoft Fabric’s mirrored databases and OneLake landing zones. Practically this means:

• GoldenGate replicates inserts/updates/deletes into OneLake using a Fabric‑compatible landing format (Delta/Parquet).
• Mirrored databases in Fabric expose a SQL analytics endpoint and integrate with Power BI, Spark and Fabric’s Data Science/ML tooling.
• Open Mirroring is open and extensible; vendors and partners (including Tessell, Striim and others) already appear in the partner ecosystem for one‑click or programmatic integration.

This approach reduces ETL complexity while preserving a canonical Oracle operational dataset. It also makes current operational data available to vectorization, model training, and retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) scenarios without separate pipelines.

Lakehouse and open formats: Apache Iceberg​

Oracle’s Autonomous AI Lakehouse and Oracle AI Database 26ai support Apache Iceberg, an open table format that enables compatibility across lakehouse platforms and prevents file‑format lock‑in. Iceberg support matters because it allows organizations to:

• Share curated tables (with schema evolution and ACID semantics) across Databricks, Snowflake, Oracle Autonomous Lakehouse, and Microsoft Fabric.
• Move from proprietary lake formats to a vendor‑agnostic catalog that supports governance and lineage.
• Mix vector and tabular data in enterprise AI workflows (Oracle’s AI Database integrates vector search with relational and JSON data).

Key management and cryptography: Azure Key Vault for TDE​

For enterprises with strict compliance or centralized cryptographic control, Oracle Database@Azure offers Azure Key Vault integration for Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) master keys. The integration supports software and HSM tiers and allows customers to rotate keys and manage lifecycles through Azure tooling. Implementation details and step‑by‑step docs are published by Microsoft and Oracle; they recommend Managed HSM or Premium tiers for production and private endpoints for secure connectivity.

---

Security, governance, and operational controls​

Identity, monitoring, and SIEM integration​

The stack integrates Oracle database telemetry with Azure identity and security tooling:

• Microsoft Entra ID provides unified authentication and conditional access.
• Microsoft Defender for Cloud assesses configuration, detects Oracle‑specific threats, and recommends hardening.
• Microsoft Sentinel ingests logs and creates SIEM and SOAR playbooks for incident detection and automated response.
• Microsoft Purview manages data classification, lineage, and governance across Oracle and mirrored OneLake datasets.

These integrations are designed to deliver a single governance plane for data and security across Oracle and Azure surfaces — a key requirement for regulated industries. However, teams must validate that log fields, audit trail fidelity, and cross‑platform incident flows meet audit and compliance requirements in their environment.

Data governance and model risk​

When Oracle operational data is mirrored to OneLake and used to train LLMs or vector indexes, enterprises must treat the model lifecycle with the same governance rigor as any regulated pipeline. That means:

• Cataloging and versioning training datasets.
• Defining retention and access policies for mirrored tables.
• Enforcing differential access controls between operational Oracle instances and analytic copies in OneLake.
• Monitoring data exposure in RAG and retrieval scenarios (PII, regulated attributes).

---

Real‑world adoption and customer stories​

Vendors are not just prototyping — customers across industries are adopting the stack.

• Activision Blizzard announced using Oracle Database@Azure to accelerate agentic AI, citing native access to Oracle data combined with Microsoft Fabric and Copilot Studio to speed AI workflows. Oracle and Microsoft named Activision Blizzard as a customer at Oracle AI World.
• Vodafone highlighted multicloud flexibility and continuity, noting Oracle databases on Exadata have powered mission‑critical apps for years and that Oracle Database@Azure helps unify workloads across clouds while preserving performance and investments.
• Public sector examples (Dubai’s MBRHE) show that government entities are leveraging the co‑located model to keep local residency, low latency, and Exadata performance while using Azure AI for analytics and citizen services. These deployments underscore the offering’s appeal to regulated environments where locality and compliance matter.

These case studies validate that the technical model — Oracle managed database inside Azure + OneLake mirroring + Azure security — is production‑grade for many enterprise workloads. That said, customer success depends on careful testing of replication performance, failover behavior, and governance enforcement.

---

Practical validation checklist for IT teams​

Before committing critical workloads, enterprise architects should treat the combined offering like any cross‑vendor architecture: rigorously validate performance, security, operational responsibility and cost.

• Validate latency and replication behavior
• Measure round‑trip latency between Azure compute/AI nodes and the Oracle Database@Azure instance under representative load.
• Exercise GoldenGate / open mirroring at production throughput and verify end‑to‑end lag and data consistency.
• Test failover, backup and DR
• Run failover drills that include both Oracle control plane recovery and Azure‑side consumers (Fabric, AI services).
• Confirm RPO/RTO across the stack and whether disaster recovery brings mirrored data into sync.
• Verify key lifecycle and access controls
• Test Azure Key Vault key rotation and recovery workflows with TDE.
• Confirm the cryptographic and audit metadata flows into Sentinel and your SIEM.
• Confirm governance, DLP and lineage
• Validate Purview lineages for mirrored OneLake tables and confirm DLP policies block unauthorized vectorization or model training on sensitive data.
• Ensure access controls are enforced consistently between the authoritative Oracle instance and mirrored analytic copies.
• Cost and contract clarity
• Request detailed pricing for Oracle services delivered inside Azure (GoldenGate licensing, Exadata/Exascale charge models, network egress or internal transfer costs).
• Define SLOs, support boundaries, escalation matrices and incident responsibilities across Oracle and Microsoft in writing.
• Design for portability
• Prefer open formats (Apache Iceberg) and exportable catalogs to avoid future lock‑in and to make exit strategies feasible.

---

Strengths and practical benefits​

• Preserve mission‑critical Oracle features: Active‑active, RAC, Exadata performance optimizations, and Oracle’s operational controls remain available while enabling Azure consumption.
• Faster time‑to‑insight: Near‑real‑time replication into OneLake reduces ETL windows and lets analytics and AI teams work on fresh data.
• Unified security and governance: Centralized key control in Azure Key Vault plus integration with Entra ID, Defender and Purview gives a coherent enterprise control plane.
• Open table formats: Apache Iceberg support helps reduce vendor lock‑in and allows enterprise lakehouse interoperability across clouds.

---

Risks, trade‑offs and red flags​

• Operational complexity across vendor boundaries: Two control planes (Oracle for the database service, Microsoft for the Azure tenant and Fabric) create complexity in incident response — clear SLAs and runbooks are obligatory. Treat this as a joint operational model rather than a single‑vendor service.
• Potential hidden costs: GoldenGate licensing, internal marketplace fees, cross‑tenant networking or gateway costs, and fabric compute for mirroring queries must be modeled realistically. Always request detailed line‑item pricing and run a cost pilot.
• Governance gaps if not tested: Differences in audit logs, retention, and data masking between the Oracle source and OneLake copies can create compliance gaps. Validate DLP, lineage, and auditing across both sides before training models or exposing data to broader teams.
• Vendor concentration risk: While the approach reduces application refactoring, it does deepen reliance on an integrated Oracle–Microsoft stack. Negotiate contract terms that preserve portability and clear exit options (data export formats, catalogs, and a migration runway).
• Unproven edge cases: Some enterprise integrations (complex GoldenGate topologies, vendor‑supplied packaged apps with specific Oracle extensions) may surface incompatibilities. Run full‑stack pilots with the actual application workload.

Where claims in vendor materials were aspirational or evolving — notably exact regional counts, pricing, and future feature timelines — those items should be validated against current product pages and sales agreements. Vendor roadmaps and press statements can change quickly; confirm dates and regional availability in writing.

---

Recommendations for enterprise architects and DBAs​

• Start with a focused pilot: choose a high‑value, low‑risk application that needs fresher data for analytics but does not endanger core business continuity if the pilot shows limitations.
• Treat governance and model risk as first‑class requirements: apply the same auditing, lineage, and access controls to mirrored OneLake datasets as you do to operational Oracle data.
• Insist on explicit cross‑vendor SLAs: define incident response, forensic responsibilities, and a shared escalation matrix between Oracle and Microsoft.
• Prefer open formats (Iceberg/Parquet/Delta) and keep metadata exportable: this protects you if you need to move away in the future.
• Budget for end‑to‑end testing: replication lag, TDE key rotation, and failover behavior are non‑trivial and must be validated under production loads.
• Negotiate contractual guarantees for data portability and pricing transparency to reduce surprises over GoldenGate or marketplace fees.

---

Final perspective​

The combined Oracle + Microsoft approach addresses a real enterprise problem: how to operationalize AI without dismantling decades of transactional database investments. The offering’s strengths are obvious — low‑latency access to Oracle data for Azure AI services, supported open lakehouse formats, and enterprise controls like Azure Key Vault and Sentinel integration. Those features make it possible to build practical, auditable AI systems that use trusted operational data.
That potential comes with responsibility. The architecture spans two major vendor ecosystems and introduces operational, contractual, and governance complexity that must be proactively managed. For teams that run thorough pilots, validate security and failover, and negotiate crystal‑clear SLAs and pricing, the stack can materially accelerate AI use cases. For teams that skip those validation steps, ambiguous responsibilities, unexpected costs, and governance gaps are the most likely outcomes. The pragmatic path forward is deliberate: test end‑to‑end, enforce governance, and preserve portability — then use the power of Oracle’s database and Azure’s AI together to drive measurable business outcomes.

---

Source: Express Computer How Enterprises Are Innovating with the Best of Oracle Database and Microsoft Azure – Six Five Media - Express Computer

 

[ChatGPT]

SAS Decision Builder has moved out of preview and is now generally available on Microsoft Fabric, giving Fabric customers a low‑code way to combine machine learning, optimization, business rules and large language models into traceable decision‑making workflows that run directly on enterprise data in OneLake.

Background / Overview​

SAS Decision Builder is SAS’ decision‑intelligence workload that codifies how organizations turn analytic outputs into actions: it composes multiple models, rules, procedural logic and—now—LLM‑powered components into a single executable decision flow. The product was first announced as an integration with Microsoft Fabric during SAS’s partnership roll‑outs and initially appeared in private preview in 2024; the vendor confirmed general availability on December 2, 2025. Microsoft Fabric’s promise is a unified analytics surface built around OneLake (the tenant‑wide logical lake), where workloads—warehousing, lakehouse, real‑time, semantic models and partner workloads—can operate on shared data with tenant governance. SAS Decision Builder appears as a Fabric workload that runs inside that same managed environment and leverages Fabric features (Power BI, OneLake, Fabric governance and capacity) to close the “last mile” between analytics and production decisions. SAS positions Decision Builder as a tool for business analysts and domain experts as much as for data scientists: a visual, low‑code editor stitches model outputs, forecasts and rules together, and the combined workflows can be deployed via containerized automation for batch or real‑time use cases. That capability is the central commercial pitch: accelerate time‑to‑action while keeping decision logic governed and auditable.

---

What SAS Decision Builder on Fabric actually provides​

Core capabilities​

• Low‑code decision flow editor: a visual canvas to combine components—statistical or ML models, optimization engines, business rules and LLMs—into an ordered decision pipeline that outputs actions or scores.
• Native OneLake access: decision flows operate against enterprise data stored or mirrored into OneLake (no awkward cross‑tenant data movement required).
• Governance and traceability: built‑in lineage, auditing and governance hooks to show how a decision was reached and which model/rule contributed.
• LLM integration: LLMs can be used as components in flows (for example to parse unstructured input or enrich features) while other components supply numeric model outputs.
• Deployment automation: decisions can be packaged and deployed using scalable containers for batch jobs or near‑real‑time endpoints.

Platform integrations (Fabric ecosystem)​

• Power BI and semantic reuse: Decision Builder can surface decisions and decision explanations to Power BI reports and dashboards, letting business users consume outcomes in familiar interfaces.
• Fabric governance primitives: the workload runs inside Fabric’s security and governance envelope (tenant access controls, lineage, monitoring), which SAS highlights as a benefit for regulated or audited deployments.
• Complementary SAS tooling: Decision Builder is part of a broader SAS‑on‑Microsoft story (Viya packaging, Viya Copilot, Viya Workbench) that brings SAS analytics into Azure and Fabric experiences. That strategic alignment has been visible since the initial integration announcement.

---

Why this matters: the “last mile” in production decisioning​

Companies routinely build accurate models but stumble when they need to operationalize those models into consistent, governed decisioning. SAS frames Decision Builder as a solution to that operational gap: it lets domain experts express business logic, integrates models from model‑builders, and automates deployment within the same data fabric so decisions can be executed where the data lives. The result should be faster model-to‑action cycles and easier cross‑team collaboration. Key practical benefits SAS and partners call out:

• Speed: reduce friction between data science output and line‑of‑business execution.
• Traceability: maintain an auditable trail for regulated use cases where you must show why a decision was made.
• Governed model composition: mix LLMs and numeric models while retaining oversight.

---

Technical details and verification​

The vendor materials and press releases explicitly state several platform facts that are relevant for architects and security teams. These have been confirmed in public SAS announcements and partner coverage:

• General availability date: SAS published a press release confirming GA on December 2, 2025.
• Runtime and deployment: Decision Builder runs as a Fabric workload and supports deploying decision logic using containers for scale and real‑time/batch modes. The press release describes automated deployment using scalable containers.
• Data residency: Decision Builder accesses data stored in Microsoft OneLake; the design intends for decisioning to operate within the same tenant data lake to reduce data movement. That claim appears consistently in SAS materials describing the workload’s integration with Fabric.

Caveat and verification note: SAS materials describe the functionality and integration, but they do not publish granular runtime SLOs (latency guarantees for real‑time scoring), pricing, or tenant‑level resource metering in public press statements. These are commercial details that must be verified directly with SAS or via Fabric tenant administrative consoles during procurement and pilot phases. Treat any performance or cost projections from marketing as starting points for validation.

---

Realistic use cases that benefit first​

SAS and early partners emphasize cross‑industry scenarios where composite decisioning buys clear business value:

• Financial services: real‑time credit decisions and next‑best‑offer orchestration using model ensembles plus business rules and regulatory guardrails.
• Fraud and authorization: combine anomaly models, rule engines and risk heuristics to score and act on suspicious events.
• Customer service: recommend actions or scripted responses by combining customer history models with language understanding components.
• Supply chain / operations: run optimization models and policy rules to automatically re‑route shipments or trigger escalation paths in near real time.

These are not hypothetical: SAS has been positioning Decision Builder as the operational surface that helps teams move from analytic insight to repeatable, measurable outcomes. Independent coverage of the SAS–Microsoft collaboration demonstrates similar examples and the technical rationale for hosting decisioning on a data fabric.

---

Strengths — what SAS Decision Builder does well​

• Tight integration with OneLake and Fabric tooling. Running decision flows within the same tenant lake removes common friction points around data movement, security boundaries and governance. This is the central architectural advantage over siloed decision services.
• Low‑code interface aimed at business users. By enabling domain experts to author decision flows visually, organizations can shorten handoffs and reduce the backlog on scarce engineering teams. This balances agility with the need for governance.
• Model and rules composition. Combining multiple analytic approaches (ML, forecasting, optimization) plus LLM capabilities is practically valuable: different model types are good at different parts of a decision, and Decision Builder’s composition model maps to that reality.
• Governance, observability, and traceability. Built‑in lineage and auditing help make decisions explainable—an important requirement in regulated domains such as finance, healthcare and public sector.

---

Risks, gaps and practical caveats​

• Vendor claims vs. production guarantees. Press releases and marketing copy highlight capabilities but do not replace contractual SLAs for latency, availability, or cost. Customers should insist on measurable SLOs for production deployments and sample billing scenarios that include Azure infrastructure costs. This is a recurring procurement recommendation when vendors bundle managed workloads into hyperscaler ecosystems.
• Data gravity and lock‑in. Running decision logic inside a vendor‑integrated Fabric workload increases data gravity. If you later decide to migrate away from Fabric or SAS, pulling large datasets, models and decision artifacts out can be costly. Ensure exit runbooks and tested export procedures are part of contractual terms.
• LLM governance and hallucination risk. LLM components can enrich decision flows, but they also introduce well‑known risks (hallucinations, token exposure, provenance challenges). Using LLMs in decisioning requires careful grounding, guardrails and human‑in‑the‑loop controls. SAS materials claim LLM integration; governance and verification must be validated in pilot.
• Operational complexity: monitoring, observability and model drift. Combining multiple model types and LLMs raises the bar for operational telemetry. Customers should require model lineage, scoring telemetry, drift alerts and test harnesses to prevent silent degradation. Marketing materials promise governance—customers must validate these features in their environment.
• Pricing transparency. SAS’s communications for the GA announcement do not include published pricing or metered examples for Fabric billing. Expect Fabric capacity billing plus potential SAS licensing or managed‑service fees; ask for modeled TCOs for 1/3/5 year horizons before committing.

---

Practical checklist for IT and procurement teams​

• Confirm functional fit in a short pilot. Start with a single, well‑scoped use case (for example, fraud triage or loan pre‑screening) that exercises LLMs, ML ensembles and rules together. Measure latency, availability, and governance traceability.
• Request explicit SLAs and sample billing scenarios. Obtain sample tenant metrics showing Fabric capacity consumption, container orchestration costs and any SAS‑side fees. Model costs for projected throughput.
• Validate governance: ask for demoed lineage, audit trails, approval gates, and human‑in‑the‑loop patterns for high‑risk decisions.
• Test LLM grounding and guardrails. Include prompt‑testing, boundary tests for hallucination, and escape routes for ambiguous decisions.
• Insist on exit and portability runbooks. Document how to export decision definitions, model artifacts, and training data with integrity checks. Practice an export before going to production.
• Integrate telemetry into observability stacks. Ensure logs, metrics and traces can be consumed by SIEM/observability platforms and set up automated drift detection and model‑performance alerts.

---

How Decision Builder fits into the broader SAS–Microsoft story​

SAS has layered several Azure/Fabric integrations over recent years: Viya packaging on Azure Marketplace, Viya Copilot integrations with Azure AI Foundry, and now Decision Builder as a Fabric workload. The strategic posture is clear: SAS wants to meet customers where their enterprise data and identity live (Microsoft cloud), offering decisioning that plugs into existing Fabric governance and BI investments. Independent coverage of the collaboration highlights the same direction—deep partnership aimed at shortening time to production for analytic investments. From Microsoft’s side, the Fabric design intentionally supports partner workloads and an “IQ” layer (semantic and agent capabilities) that encourages third‑party integrations such as Decision Builder. Customers who already standardize on Fabric and OneLake will find the proposition attractive because it reduces integration work and leverages common governance.

---

Final assessment and recommendation for WindowsForum readers​

SAS Decision Builder’s GA on Microsoft Fabric is a meaningful expansion of Fabric’s partner ecosystem and a practical answer to the persistent problem of operationalizing analytics into governed actions. For organizations already invested in Microsoft Fabric and OneLake, Decision Builder offers a compelling path to:

• Turn multi‑model analytics into repeatable decision pipelines without heavy engineering rewrites.
• Combine numerical models and LLMs within a governed, auditable environment.

However, the vendor announcements are intentionally high level. Before adopting Decision Builder for production workloads, WindowsForum readers should insist on pilot validation, explicit SLOs and clarity on pricing and data portability. The technical promise is real, but the business value will depend on careful due diligence: realistic TCO modeling, governance verification, and integrated observability will determine whether Decision Builder is a long‑term enabler or a convenient but tightly coupled tool that increases vendor and platform dependency. SAS’ press release and partner commentary make the capability clear; independent coverage of the SAS–Microsoft collaboration confirms the strategic fit—and they together point to a practical direction for enterprises that want to move AI from prototypes to production decisions with governed, repeatable workflows. Test with representative data, demand contractual guarantees for performance and exit, and treat LLM components with the same governance rigor as numeric models. That approach will let organizations capture the speed and automation benefits without taking on unmanaged risk.

---

Conclusion: SAS Decision Builder on Microsoft Fabric is now generally available and represents a pragmatic, partner‑native approach to decision intelligence—one that is especially attractive to organizations already anchored in OneLake and Fabric. Its value will be greatest where teams combine domain expertise, model rigor and disciplined governance; its pitfalls will appear where procurement, observability and portability are assumed rather than contractually guaranteed. Use the headlines as an invitation to pilot, but verify SLAs, costs and governance before scaling to mission‑critical decision workflows.

---

Source: Techzine Global SAS Decision Builder generally available on Microsoft Fabric