Unpopular opinion: The compliance reports look fancy but lack actionable remediation steps.

Okay, I've been deep in the FOSSA compliance reports for the last month across three different projects, and I'm hitting the same wall every time. The PDFs and dashboards are undeniably slick—the dependency trees are pretty, the license breakdowns are color-coded, and the risk scores look very official. But when I actually need to *fix* something, I'm left scratching my head.

The core issue, in my opinion, is that the reports excel at **identification** but fall flat on **prescription**. They tell me *what's* wrong, but the "how to resolve" part is often a vague dead-end.

Here's a concrete example from a Node.js project. The report flagged a `lodash` dependency as having a "License: BSD-3-Clause" issue. The dashboard said:
- **Status:** Policy Violation
- **Risk:** Medium
- **Action:** Review license

That's it. No next step. What does "Review license" even mean? I had to dig to find it was about a sub-dependency deep in the tree. The report didn't tell me:
- Which *exact* transitive path introduced it.
- If there's a newer, clean version of the immediate parent dependency I could upgrade to.
- A suggested command to try (e.g., `npm ls lodash` to trace it).
- Whether the issue can be resolved with a package override or if I need to seek alternatives.

It's like a linter that says "Code smell on line 42" without hinting at *why* it's a smell or offering a quick-fix. The gap between seeing a problem and knowing the precise command or config change to solve it is huge.

Another pain point is with remediation of security vulnerabilities. It'll list a CVE and say "Upgrade package." Fantastic. But:
- What's the *minimum* non-breaking version I should upgrade to that addresses the CVE?
- Does that upgrade have its own license or dependency conflicts?
- Is there a known workaround if upgrading isn't immediately possible?

I end up having to cross-reference with Snyk or the National Vulnerability Database to get the actionable data I need, which defeats the purpose of an all-in-one report.

I'm wondering if others have this experience. Have you found a way to configure FOSSA to give more granular, CLI-actionable advice? Or do you also maintain a separate set of scripts to parse FOSSA's output and generate actual `npm audit fix` or `pip install -U` commands?

Maybe I'm using it wrong, but for a tool that's integrated into the CI/CD pipeline, the output feels oddly disconnected from the developer's workflow of edit -> test -> commit. I want a "Fix" button that gives me a PR, or at least a shell command I can copy-paste.