Just one piece of advise. Do not sacrifice usability for elegance. I can see you consistently apply a model that builds on metadata abstractions. Nevertheless,

Just one piece of advise. Do not sacrifice usability for elegance. I can see you consistently apply a model that builds on metadata abstractions. Nevertheless, it is not conceptual consistency but expectations that should drive interactions. A difficult balance, given that consistency also improves accuracy of expectations but if you take big vendors, that consistency approach was taken to the limits by BPC. This is why everything feels like 10 extra steps. When someone creates artefacts they should be immediately available. The only thing that should necessitate a metadata application from a user perspective should be metadata (as in dimensions changes, not even member additions) and logic changes (if you need to optimise your calculations graph.) The rest should be transparent and separated at least visually from metadata. You can keep security in metadata, but calculation is a separate concept and you will most probably have to separate it when, as per your roadmap, you look into workflows. Do not get confused by the consistency. Look at the concepts from a user perspective and hide elegance in implementation if you can. I hope this helps. I will send you an email and we can discuss in more detail.