Why detected source steps differ from estimated Power Automate actions
Large Nintex workflows often contain branch rows, case rows, container rows, and other analysis artifacts that are useful for coverage but do not always become standalone Power Automate actions. Flow Migrator now shows those concepts separately so the numbers are easier to trust.
Two counts, two purposes
Detected source steps represent what the analyzer found in the source workflow. They are used for coverage reporting, supported/partial/unsupported classification, and workflow-owner review.
Estimated Power Automate actions represent the generated cloud-flow actions that are expected to count against the Power Automate action limit. This estimate excludes analyzer-only rows such as branch/case rows that become part of parent Condition, Switch, Scope, or control structures.
A workflow can show 846 detected source steps but 598 estimated Power Automate actions because many branch/case rows are coverage rows, not emitted cloud-flow actions.
Why supported counts can be higher
Supported, partial, and unsupported counts are about migration coverage. They answer whether the analyzer understands the source step and whether it has a supportable mapping strategy.
The action-limit estimate answers a different question: how many Power Automate actions might be emitted after the converter collapses source containers, branches, and cases into actual cloud-flow structures.
- Use coverage counts to scope remediation work.
- Use the action estimate to judge the 500-action platform risk.
- Do not expect supported source steps to equal emitted Power Automate actions.
When to worry
If the estimated Power Automate action count is near or above 500, the workflow should be treated as a large-flow candidate even if most source steps are supported. The right remediation is often to split the workflow, move repeated logic into child flows, or refactor highly repetitive notification/update sections.
If the detected source-step count is high but the emitted estimate is reasonable, the workflow may still be a good conversion candidate, but the review effort may be larger because owners must validate more source behavior.