In most tools, dashboard-level filters are designed to act as additional filters, not override those already applied at the report level. The fact that dashboard filters completely replace report filters feels like a workaround is needed just to maintain consistency—and it introduces a lot of potential for confusion.
More importantly, this behavior undermines how we’re using dashboards altogether. For example, we’ve built a standardized set of reports for Directors, each with its own specific filters to show the right slice of data. Then, we use dashboards to apply Director-specific filters (like product areas they care about). The expectation is that both the report filters and the dashboard filters would be applied—so that Directors see the data they need, scoped appropriately.
If we have to choose between report filters or dashboard filters, it defeats the purpose of the dashboard entirely. We'd end up needing to create and maintain a separate version of each report for every stakeholder, which significantly reduces the efficiency and value dashboards are supposed to provide.
I hope this behavior can be revisited—it seems to run counter to standard dashboard logic, and causes friction in real-world use cases. Happy to chat further or provide examples if helpful.
There are so many use cases for this, particularly for dashboards at the organization level. For instance, we have a release dashboard with individual panels for releases in preplanning or releases in progress or releases shipped last 7 days. To do that each panel report has to be filtered by status or time in status. (The reason this isn't one report with groupings is that the fields we want to display are different based on status. Different information is most relevant depending on the status of the release.) The obvious dashboard filter would be product, overlaid on the panel filters, so people could focus in on only those releases relevant to them. But we cannot do that. We have very similar needs for initiatives, objectives etc.