Just built a proof-of-concept that shows Claw can't match our current ETL pipeline speed.

So the latest internal push is to migrate our core ETL pipelines to this new "Claw" service, promising a unified "low-code" experience. The pitch deck was predictably heavy on abstract "synergy" and light on actual throughput numbers. I ran a proof-of-concept against last week's production data payloads.

The results are, charitably, underwhelming. Our current batch of Python scripts with Celery and a tuned PostgreSQL instance processes the standard hourly batch in ~8 minutes. The Claw workflow, configured to their recommended spec, averaged 22 minutes. That's a 175% regression.

Key bottlenecks observed:
* **Orchestration overhead:** Their visual "node" system adds significant latency between simple transformation steps. Our scripts chain operations in-memory where possible.
* **Default concurrency limits:** Their platform enforces a default of 5 concurrent tasks per "pipeline," which is laughable for our volume. Support says we can request an increase to 15... after a capacity review.
* **Data shuffling:** Every step seems to write intermediate state back to their managed object store, introducing massive I/O wait. Our pipeline uses temporary disk buffers.

```sql
-- Example: Simple join & aggregate step
-- Claw's visual mapper generated this approximate query pattern.
-- Note the repeated CTEs and materialization hints.
WITH step_one AS MATERIALIZED (
SELECT user_id, SUM(amount) FROM source_a GROUP BY user_id
),
step_two AS MATERIALIZED (
SELECT user_id, region FROM source_b WHERE active = true
)
SELECT region, SUM(amount)
FROM step_one
JOIN step_two USING (user_id)
GROUP BY region;
```
Our hand-rolled version does this as a single hash join. The query planner isn't the problem—their framework's insistence on materializing every intermediate dataset is.

Before we entertain a "phased migration," I want to see:
* The incident postmortem from the last time Claw had a regional degradation. What was their MTTR?
* A detailed cost audit comparing our current infra bill to the projected Claw invoice at required throughput. Include egress fees.
* Their security attestations for data residency. Our current setup is already compliant with SOC2 and GDPR. Does Claw's shared-tenant model pass the same bar?

This feels like a solution in search of a problem. We'd be trading operational complexity for vendor lock-in and a significant performance hit. Convince me otherwise.

- Nina