Skip to main content

Generative BI and intelligence layers

Natural-language access to data sounds useful until the model invents a metric, joins the wrong table, or answers fluently with the wrong number.

Why common approaches fail

Chat-on-warehouse demos skip semantic contracts, groundedness gates, and ownership of metric definitions. Fluency is mistaken for correctness.

Activation insight

Natural-language access to data is dangerous when metric definitions are not controlled.

How Knackline solves it

We put an intelligence layer on trusted semantic definitions: governed metrics, groundedness checks, and agents that refuse to invent KPIs.

System components

  • Semantic layer contracts

    Owned metric definitions the model must respect.

  • Groundedness gates

    Stop fluent wrong numbers before they reach dashboards.

  • Accuracy controls

    Eval sets for BI questions that matter to finance and ops.

  • Operator visibility

    Traces of which metric and table produced an answer.

Operational hardening

Change control on the semantic layer, regression tests for BI questions, and clear refusal behavior when the catalog cannot support a query.

Evidence from reports

FAQ

Can users still ask free-form questions?
Yes, within the metric catalog. When a question falls outside owned definitions, the system should refuse or escalate rather than invent a KPI.
How is this different from a text-to-SQL demo?
Text-to-SQL optimizes for generating SQL. Generative BI must optimize for trusted metrics, auditability, and grounded answers.