Inconsistent data when porting report to new project

!–[image|666x499]upload://oa80dHG3CQHvdNPmD58JAoA2CRy.png)
(Image contents: a bar chart from a report similar to the image below)

I’m porting the above report and all associated user-defined measures from one Jira project to another. The following is the result:

Drilling down into specifics, however, ‘original estimated hours’ data is not showing up for that first sprint:

!–[image|690x365]upload://–mV3JfDTgNLMACqoIZRvWA0n99b0.png)
(Image contents: sanitized screenshot of results from “Drill through issue” for ‘Hours Spent’ on Sprint 12, displaying many issues & accurate data for ‘Hours Spent’, but no data for ‘Original estimated hours’)

Let’s take that first issue, EUCX-134:

!–[image|690x293]upload://–kY3w5hO2RbynW9lKvNQOfm1CcTZ.png)
(Image contents: ‘Time Tracking’ sidebar of Jira issue EUCX-134 showing 1 day estimated and 4h remaining)

Note that an original estimate exists, but is not displayed in the report (in fact there appears to be no data for ‘Original Estimated Hours’ at all for that first sprint, while data for ‘Hours spent’ is accurate as well as all of the data for the remaining sprints.

Any ideas what we could be running into here?

Edit: Apologies for the mess, there are some fairly strict restrictions to my ability to post images or links.

Hi @malioto,
Welcome to eazyBI community! :wave:

Measure Original estimated hours are counted only against the issue’s current sprint. In this case, if you have issue that is being done in several sprints then Original estimated hours will be shown only at current sprint level. (you can read more about Jira software related measures here - Jira Software custom fields)

If you would like to calculate Original estimated hours for issues committed to a Sprint then I suggest checking this answer from my colleague Zane:

P.S. If you have some restrictions about posting images, you can always reach to us directly via our support email - support@eazyBI.com

best,
Gerda // eazyBI support team

Thank you! This solution was excellent and worked for the project where we encountered this issue. One remaining question (from Rashi) was why we encountered this ‘issue’ (really, a misinterpretation) in one report pointed at one project, but not in an identical report pointed at another project.