FK Consulting

Specimen · constructed for illustration

What actually lands on your desk.

Below is the structure and level of detail of the two central tables in a Convergence Assessment. The figures are illustrative and constructed — not a redacted client engagement — because client work belongs to the clients who paid for it.

Table 1 — Support-floor statement, per environment

The first question, and the one that determines whether anything else can be sequenced. Also the whole of the £2,750 engagement if you want to buy just this.

EnvironmentX3 releaseSQL ServerWindows ServerSupported end-to-end?Blocking
PRODV12.0.31 (2022 R2)2016 SP32016NoSQL EOS 14 Jul 26 · X3 below 12.0.23 floor for SQL 2019
TESTV12.0.312016 SP32019NoAs PROD
TRAINV12.0.282016 SP22016NoBelow cumulative-patch prerequisite (12.0.19+ OK, but 3 levels behind PROD)
REPORT (replica)n/a2016 SP32016NoUnpatched since Jul 26

Target combination — the only one current and supported end to end:
X3 2026 R1 (V12.0.39) · SQL Server 2022 · Windows Server 2025 · MongoDB 8.0.17.4

Consequence: the SQL migration cannot be separated from the ERP upgrade. Eight patch levels and two platform replacements, one project, one outage window. Any plan that sequences these apart will fail at the point SQL 2022 refuses the 12.0.31 build.

Table 2 — Field-level gap analysis (extract: UK CBAM)

Not "you need to capture emissions data". This, per field, per table, with the population state measured rather than assumed.

RequirementField / tablePresent?PopulatedGapEffort
8-digit commodity codeITMMASTER.CUSREF / ITMFACILITYes71%8-digit held as 6 in 29% of records; free-text suffixData cleanse + validation rule
Net mass excl. packaging, 6 dpITMMASTER.NETWEIYes34%2 dp scale; gross weight used where net is null; no per-line captureSchema change + receipt capture
Tax point / customs clearance dateNo0%Held in broker portal only, not in X3Interface build
Value at importPORDERQ.NETPRI + landed costYes96%Reconciles to GL; FX date basis needs fixingConfig
Proof of originBPSUPPLIER (attachment)Partial52%Unstructured; no expiry trackingDoc model + workflow
Supplier verification reportNo0%No structure to hold verified vs default valuesNew table
Effective carbon price + FXNo0%Carbon Price Relief cannot be evidencedNew table
6-year retention w/ lineageAUDITH / archive policyPartialArchive purges at 24 months; will not survive upgradeRetention redesign

Read: three of eight requirements have no home in the schema at all, and the single most important field — net mass excluding packaging — is present but at the wrong scale and populated for a third of the item master. That is a schema change plus a goods-receipt capture change, and both have to land on an estate that can still take a patch. Hence Table 1 first.

Table 3 — Sequenced critical path (extract)

#WorkstreamMust finish byBecauseBlocks
1Estate remediation — X3 + SQL + WSNov 2026WS2016 EOS 12 Jan 27; all schema work lands here2, 3, 4, 5
2CBAM schema + goods-receipt captureDec 2026Charge starts 1 Jan 27; needs a full period of clean data
3EUDR DDS reference propagationDec 202630 Dec 26, incl. legacy EUTR timber regardless of size
4Packaging BOM (pEPR / PPWR / DRS)Mar 2027RAM 2027 reporting year; DRS artwork lead time 12–24 months6
5DE/SK e-invoicing on 12.0.39Dec 20261 Jan 27; requires the upgrade in 1
6DRS GTIN reallocation + EDI resyncQ2 2027Retailer catalogue windows, not the 1 Oct 27 date
The point of showing you this

You are being asked to spend £2,750 or £12,000 on a document. It is reasonable to want to see the shape of it first. If the level of detail above is not what you need, that is useful for both of us to establish before an invoice rather than after one.

Book a call Check your exposure first