Opening: The AccusationYour Fabric Data Warehouse is just a CSV graveyard. I know that stings, but look at how you’re using it—endless CSV dumps, cold tables, scheduled ETL jobs lumbering along like it’s 2015. You bought Fabric to launch your data into the age of AI, and then you turned it into an archive. The irony is exquisite. Fabric was built for intelligence—real‑time insight, contextual reasoning, self‑adjusting analytics. Yet here you are, treating it like digital Tupperware.Meanwhile, the AI layer you paid for—the Data Agents, the contextual governance, the semantic reasoning—sits dormant, waiting for instructions that never come. So the problem isn’t capacity, and it’s not data quality. It’s thinking. You don’t have a data problem; you have a conceptual one: mistaking intelligence infrastructure for storage. Let’s fix that mental model before your CFO realizes you’ve reinvented a network drive with better branding.Section 1: The Dead Data ProblemLegacy behavior dies hard. Most organizations still run nightly ETL jobs that sweep operational systems, flatten tables into comma‑separated relics, and upload the corpses into OneLake. It’s comforting—predictable, measurable, seductively simple. But what you end up with is a static museum of snapshots. Each file represents how things looked at one moment and immediately begins to decay. There’s no motion, no relationships, no evolving context. Just files—lots of them.The truth? That approach made sense when data lived on‑prem in constrained systems. Fabric was designed for something else entirely: living data, streaming data, context‑aware intelligence. OneLake isn’t a filing cabinet; it’s supposed to be the circulatory system of your organization’s information flow. Treating it like cold storage is the digital equivalent of embalming your business metrics.Without semantic models, your data has no language. Without relationships, it has no memory. A CSV from Sales, a CSV from Marketing, a CSV from Finance—they can coexist peacefully in the same lake and still never talk to each other. Governance structures? Missing. Metadata? Optional, apparently. The result is isolation so pure that even Copilot, Microsoft’s conversational AI, can’t interpret it. If you ask Copilot, “What were last quarter’s revenue drivers?” it doesn’t know where to look because you never told it what “revenue” means in your schema.Let’s take a micro‑example. Suppose your Sales dataset contains transaction records: dates, amounts, product SKUs, and region codes. You happily dump it into OneLake. No semantic model, no named relationships, just raw table columns. Now ask Fabric’s AI to identify top‑performing regions. It shrugs—it cannot contextualize “region_code” without metadata linking it to geography or organizational units. To the machine, “US‑N” could mean North America or “User Segment North.” Humans rely on inference; AI requires explicit structure. That’s the gap turning your warehouse into a morgue.Here’s what most people miss: Fabric doesn’t treat data at rest and data in motion as separate species. It assumes every dataset could one day become an intelligent participant—queried in real time, enriched by context, reshaped by governance rules, and even reasoned over by agents. When you persist CSVs without activating those connections, you’re ignoring Fabric’s metabolic design. You chop off its nervous system.Compare that to “data in motion.” In Fabric, Real‑Time Intelligence modules ingest streaming signals—IoT events, transaction logs, sensor pings—and feed them into live datasets that can trigger responses instantly. Anomaly detection isn’t run weekly; it happens continuously. Trend analysis doesn’t wait for the quarter’s end; it updates on every new record. This is what alive data looks like: constantly evaluated, contextualized by AI agents, and subject to governance rules in milliseconds.The difference between data at rest and data in motion is fundamental. Resting data answers, “What...