Release documentation - P&C Enhancements and requests

Problem:
Government tax calculation is calculating and adding amounts multiple times

Solution:
If GT trigger and GT target detail exists on the worksheet, and you have set the target detail to zero and applied the worksheet so that message AC0837 is triggered, then if you now select the option Automatic Booking of Government Tax, the system must recalculate and overrule the zero amount on the target detail. This shall be independent if the rule is defined with Automatic Booking or not.
NB! Keep the existing functionality that the system does NOT recalcualte and overrule the zero amount on the target detail if the user applies the worksheet, even if the rule is defined with Automatic Booking. This is working correct and shall remain as is, both when the target amount is zero or different from zero, it is only if the target detail is missing that the Automatic Booking shall take place when the worksheet is applied.
2nd minor problem to solve:
If you have two GT rules with the same trigger entry code group and same target entry code and you book the trigger entry code, calculates the target entry codes (two new details are created with same entry code), and if you now change one of the target detail amount and select the option to automatic calculation of GT detail, then the system shall recalculate and book individually according to the two rules, and NOT add these two target amounts together.

Problem:
Not considered scenario where in previous Q is no retained, however validation in current Q expects release.

Solution:
When applying a worksheet with only Paid Loss, i.e. no details with basis for premium deposit retained, we must make sure the system does NOT raise message AC0395 for validation rule Premium deposit retained, i.e. that the system expects corresponding detail in worksheet. It is important that the system accepts the missing retained detail also when the previoius booked retained and released deposit details are not marked as Released.
The same if worksheet only contains of Premium, i.e. no details with basis for loss deposit retained.

Workaround:
Make sure the retained deposits are released by using the automatic release function in SICS, so that both the retained and released deposit gets the release indicator set to Released.

Problem:
Not considered scenario where in previous Q is no retained, however validation in current Q expects release.

Solution:
When booking only a claim booking without releasing the premium deposit retained last 4th quarter in previous accounting year, then the system raise AC0395 telling that the premium deposit release is missing, but the user cannot override it. Make sure the system mark randomly a detail on the worksheet (mark it yellow), so that the user can use this detail to overrule the error message.

Problem:
Occ Yr alloc order TWS - Claim as the Balance Type on SICS.SICSPC.AC_LEDGER_BALANCE table

Solution:
When running the Occurrence Year Allocation of Losses order and it includes booking details from Claim worksheet, these details will correctly be created on Technical Worksheet, but we must always make sure that all balances created by this order sets the ac_ledger_balance.subclass equal 4 and the ac_leger_balance.frk_balance_type equal TECHNICAL. This must be the case even if the source worksheets are Claim and the frk_balance_type on the balances are CLAIM.
If these balances are initiated with ac_ledger_balance.subclass equal 5 and/or the ac_leger_balance.frk_balance_type equal CLAIM this must be overruled when the balances are created by the Occurrence Year Allocation of Losses

Workaround:
Until the fix is delivered and if the siutation occurs again, the data can be cleaned up by rerunning the below update script.

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected
Make an update script to set the following values on the technical worksheets created by the Occurrence Year Allocation of Losses order:
ac_ledger_balance.subclass = 4 if it is different from 4
ac_ledger_balance.frk_balance_type = TECHNICAL if it is CLAIM

Problem:
Unexpected BS00478 because SICS takes allocated URB as open worksheets.

Solution:
When the user select the option to Commute a Business or its Insured Period, the system checks if there are open worksheets, or more correct it checks the value in AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_WORKSH_STATUS. If any balance in this check has the value 'NONE', 'AUTH', 'CORRECT', 'O', 'REJECT', 'R', 'SUSP' and 'UNFI', then the system correctly presents the error message BS00478 - There are open worksheets on this Business. Cease Accounting not allowed. All these worksheet statuses are correct and shall stop the user from commuting the business, but an additional condition must be checked for balances with FRK_WORKSH_STATUS = R.
FRK_WORKSH_STATUS = R is set on Unallocated Remittance balances. But not all Unallocated Remittance balances shall trigger this message.
If FRK_WORKSH_STATUS = R then the system must also check the AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_SETLMNT_IND for this/these balances. If any of the balances has the FRK_SETLMNT_IND = S then this will also trigger BS00478.
The value S in FRK_SETLMNT_IND means that the Unallocated Remittance balance is still Unallocated, i.e. has an active pairing. But when the FRK_SETLMNT_IND = U, then it means that it has been Allocated, i.e. it has been annulled from the pairing and replaced by a technical balance.

Problem:
Inconsistency Payment type while creating Paid Write-Off(s).

Solution:
Preconditions:
Checked system parameter ' All Paid Remittance Status mandatory', 'Authorized Status Requires Different Signature' and 'Status 'Authorized' not Available for Write Off Remittance'
With the above system parameters selected it shall be possible to create a Write-Off remittance and set it directly to Final without going through all statuses. This works fine when the remittance is created manually in SICS user interface, but this must also be made possible when a Write-Off remittance is created through web service createRemittance.

Problem:
SICSPC bug updateAccountingClassifications doenst work as expected - BPF0002 - Preconditions check failed

Solution:
When running the web service updateAccountingClassification and the system cannot find the given Accounting Classification by use of the given Business, Scope of Cover and content of the classification
When running the web service updateAccountingClassification, the system shall update the identified AC, e.g. with a given AC Split percentage
<splitPercentage>

Problem:
Incorrect Classification on accounting during Intercompany Transfer

Solution:
We must make sure the logic is different if the system parameter 'Make Valid AC from AB on Intra Group Contract bookings' is selected or not.
Parameter selected:
Use existing logic according to the description of the system parameter in the system admin guide.
Parameter NOT selected:
When bookings are automatically created on Intra Group Contract Inward Assumed Business (IGC IAB) coming from an ORP, we must make sure the system keeps the values of the different coverage classification elements even if the value is not among the classification values on the IGC IAB. If a similar AC exists on the IGC IAB, with the same element values, then this AC shall be picked and used for the IGC IAB booking, even if this AC is invalid. If no AC exists with similar values on the IGC IAB, then the system shall create one with the same values as coming from the AC on the ORP, even if it is invalid.
The worksheet will remain Open on the IGC IAB if an invalid AC exists on any of the details on the worksheet (existing functionality).
The above is independent of the sequence of the existing ACs on the IGC IAB, if a valid AC is found first, or if an invalid AC is found first or if a matching AC is first or not.
The above must take place when the bookings are done on the main section of the businesses.
Not yet fixed: If booking are done on sub sections, there might be some issues still if new ACs have to be created. A new service case will be established for this.

Workaround:
Since the worksheet remains open the user can just manually select a valid AC on the Intra Group Contrac IAB to have the worksheet closed. The system will NOT change the classification element to a valid value on the IGC IAB, not even after the above correction.
It is also a possibility to select the above system parameter. In that case, it is recommended to read about this parameter in the system admin guide.

Problem:
TA - Gov. Tax Table freezes when scrolling (Scrolling issue) - send 2nd time zip file

Solution:
When opening the Government Tax Table page in the system parameters we must make sure the performance to open this page and to scroll among the GT rules must be improved so it gets on an acceptable level.

Problem:
Reversal Installment Balance Missing in ORP when Special Premium Flag is Checked in OCC Business.

Solution:
Preconditions:
A non-prop treaty OCC with the Special Premium selected on the Premium and Limit conditions and with multiple Accounting Classification with AC % defined on them.
Booking of Instalment is done on the OCC and correctly distributed to all the ORPs according to the retroceded share and AC %.
When this instalment is reversed, the system correctly reverse the instalment on the OCC according to the AC %, but the system must also make sure all parts of the instalment are reversed as well, so that the total premium booked for this instalment becomes zero.

Problem:
FC1 on the IGC is copied from the source business and not as per the IGC set-up

Solution:
When booking are automatically created on an IGC IAB, coming from an ORP, and the system shall set the Functional Currency and Amount on the IGC IAB details, then the following logic must take place;
If the system parameter 'Keep FC Amount in Intra Group Contract Bookings' is selected, then the system shall keep both the FC Currency and Amount from the ORP detail on the IGC IAB detail.
If the system parameter 'Keep FC Amount in Intra Group Contract Bookings' is NOT selected, then the system shall re-calculate and set the FC Currency and Amount according to the rules for the IGC IAB.
This must be totally independent of the system parameter 'Reverse with Re-calculation'. Make sure this parameter does not affect the above.

Workaround:
If the Base Companies on the ORP and on the IGC IAB have different FC rules, and you want the rules for the base company on the IGC IAB be used, then make sure the 'Keep FC Amount in Intra Group Contract Bookings' is switched off.

Problem:
Performance issue when select 'Show All Bookings' on Technical worksheet

Solution:
Make the function Show All Bookings on the technical worksheet more effective and reduce the performance time

Problem:
Abend in balance pairing when including both Technical balances and Remittances

Solution:
Preconditions:
System parameter When pairing, always use Remittance as the driving Balance is selected
System parameter Pending Status for Balance Pairing is NOT selected
When the driving balance in a balance pairing is a Remittance balance and the included balances is a combination of technical/claim balance(s) and remittance balance(s), then the error message AC0823 must appear, telling the user that
'It is not allowed to include both technical and remittance balances in the pairing when system parameters 'When Pairing, always Use Remittances as the Driving Balances' and 'Balance Pairing Group in Use' both are activated.'

Root Cause:
Enhancement SE-12504 in SICS 22.2 and 4.8.6_SSP23

Problem:
SICS Abend when answering No to SICSC0016 two times

Solution:
When running the Open Worksheet Mass Update order by the option Close or Close Selected, and the system have to interrupt the process because one of the worksheets to be closed have been updated by another user in the meantime, i.e. the message SICS0016 appears, then the user can answer Yes to automatically refresh the system or No to remain on the mass update order. The system shall not abend.
Additional, when the user replies No to message SICS0016, the system must present the message implemented in SE-2373 and inform the user how many worksheets have been closed and automatically refresh the list of remaining open worksheet.
If the user replies Yes to message SICS0016 the system will immediately refresh the system without giving any further message to the user, but still the already closed worksheets remain closed which will be reflected when the mass update order again is opened and the user list open worksheets. So to get the information about how many worksheets have been closed before the message SICS0016 appeared, the user must reply No to that message.

Problem:
Abend when selecting Premium Overview when no premium booked yet

Solution:
On the Premium and Limit conditions on a Facultative or Direct Assumed Business, there is a Premium Overview button in the bottom right corner. When this is selected, the system open up a Premium Overview window and lists all worksheets booked on this insured period with premium and deductions. If there are no worksheets found, then the system must open an empty Premium Overview window and not abend because the worksheet is null.

Problem:
Sanctions Watchlist - missing from the updateInsuredPeriod web service

Solution:
In the web service updateInsuredPeriod, in the entrypoint SicsWsBusinessEntryPoint, the missing element Sanctions Watch List must be added after the element <governmentTaxValidationIndicator>. The new element shall be named <sanctionsWatchList>. Valid values for this new element is No (false) and Yes (true).
When running the web service with this new element set to Yes, then the tick box named Sanction Watch List on the Insured Period, Validation tab must be selected. If the element is activated and set to No, then the tick box Sanction Watch List becomes unticked. If the element is inactive in the web service, the tick box Sanction Watch List is not updated.

Problem:
Mass Pairing Order: Paid Remittance with Payment Partner Routine - Payment Partner

Solution:
When running the Mass Pairing order and when Match on Payment Partner is selected on the Order, the system must match the Payment Partner on the Remittance with the Payment Partner on the included balances. For Remittance Balances and Included balances with same Payment Partner, system must check if the currency and amount of the Remittance matches the currency and amount of the Included balance. If a Tolerance Limit is defined on the Order, the amount is defined to match if the difference between the two amounts is within the defined Tolerance Limit. If no Tolerance Limit is defined, the amounts must have an exact match. In addition, system must check the Due Date on the Remittance against the Due Date on the Included Balances. Only Included Balances with a due date less than or equal to the Due Date on the Remittance + number of days defined in the Due Dates in future field on the Order are matched.
If a remittance balance matches more than one included balance, no pairing will take place.
NB! If the matched balance is a Settlement Balance Group and this SBG contains a balance on a worksheet with status Authorized, then this balance shall still NOT be paired with the remittance.

Problem:
Abend when the remittance type is null in the mass pairing order

Solution:
When creating or updating a Mass Pairing order the system must check that at least one Remittance Type is Selected. If none is selected then a syntax error message must appear telling that this is required but has not been specified. Same type of validation that takes place for missing Base Company.

Workaround:
If the intention with removing all Remittance Types is to indicate that all types shall be considered, it is better to Select all Remittance Types. The operation to remove/select all is the same, but it is more informative to actually select all if you want all to be considered.

Problem:
System does not save more than 50 partners IDs in business partner field.

Solution:
When the user enter Business Partner IDs in the Business Partner's field on the Mass Pairing order or on the Mass Pairing of Technical/Claim Balances order, then the system shall NOT read the system parameter Cursor Page Amount (Rows in Find) for Business Partners under Find, Partners. Instead, the system shall display 'all' partner names identified by the different BP IDs given in the field, limited up to 2000 for now, even if the number of partners exceeds the Cursor Page Amount in the system parameter.

Problem:
SBG containing worksheets with Authorized status are not excluded from Mass Pairing.

Solution:
It is not quite correct that a SBG containing worksheets with status Authorized are not excluded from Mass Pairing. They ARE excluded in the way that when the system detects that the matching SBG contains an Authorized worksheet it is not paired with the remittance, but the Notes on the remittance is updated since the remittance balance actually found a match, with the following text 'This is not allowed since the balance is part of an SBG' which is misleading.
Instead the match with the SBG should be ignored and the Notes should be updated with an already existing message text 'No Match' used when a remittance balance is candidate, but no balances found to match with it. In case the remittance matches two different balances and one of them is an SBG with a balance in an Authorized worksheet, then the system shall be paired with the other matching balance.

Workaround:
Since the system will NOT do pairing between a remittance balance and an SBG containing balances on Authorized worksheet, you can just ignore the misleading text in the Notes.

Root Cause:
Enhancement case SE-10707 in version 23.1

Problem:
When Worksheet Status Flags is only 'Closed' in Business Partner Ledger, appear worksheets of status 'Authorized' and 'Closed' in the list.

Solution:
On the BP Ledger, when selecting Worksheet Status Flag Closed (Open is not selected) in combination with Balance Type Technical, then the system also lists balances on worksheets with status Authorized. Authorized shall only be listed if you select Open.

Root Cause:
Enhancement case SE-10707 in 23.1

Problem:
Incorrect behavior when changing the 'Authorized' status worksheet registered in SBG to 'Inactive' status

Solution:
When user selects Inactivate as new status on a worksheet of status Authorized and a balance on this worksheet is part of an SBG, then the system raise error message ACBP034. The system must set the status back to Authorized when pressing OK on that message and roll back correctly any other update that has taken place.

Root Cause:
Enhancement SE-10707 in 23.1

Problem: 

View Source details from Prop OCC disabled

Solution:

View source details from Prop OCC should be made available for both assumed source details and light source details, according to previous functionality

Root Cause:

SE-19082

Problem:
Retrocession Estimation Calculation Order – Exchange Rate Date Field Not Visible

Solution:
In the Edit Retrocession Estimation Calculation Order window, in the area of Exchange Rate, make sure the field below the Category becomes visible and editable

Problem:
Mass pairing of technical/claim balances should be subject to AC0504 as Validate BYRP in Balance Pairing is selected

Solution:
When the user performs the Mass Pairing Of Technical/Claim balances and the system is trying to do a pairing where the included balance has a Booking Year/Period higher than the Default settings for Balance pairing rule for the actual Base Company, then this pairing cannot be performed and must therefore be skipped so that the process can continue with the remaining available pairings. There will be no update of the notes on those balances skipped from the process.

Problem:
Instalment Tab not showing correct values for Paid and Paid %

Solution:
When balance pairing takes place between a remittance balance and a balance booked from the instalment conditions, the system shall update the Paid and Paid % columns for the actual instalment. In case the instalment balance is just partially settled, then the percentage shall reflect this.

Problem:
Not possible to run Functional Currency Revaluation order through API

Solution:
We need a new web service to execute/run an existing Functional Currency Revaluation Order within the entrypoint SicsWsPcAccountingEntryPoint. The only element needed to be given in this service is the Identifier of the order. If this Identfier is found for this type of order it will be Run as if it was started online with the same functionality and validations as online.
The element of the order Id shall not be possible to copy, i.e. this web service can only be ran for one order at the time.

Problem:
No error message(ACBP034) is displayed when the detail amount is changed.

Solution:
When the new parameter implemented in SE-10707, 'Allow Balances in Authorized Status in Settlement Balance Group', is ON then the user will be prevented from updating any information on a detail (or its balance) if it belongs to a balance that is part of a Settlement Balance Group AND belongs to a worksheet in status Authorized. Also if the update of the detail does not update its balance amount.
The above must be implemented both on Technical and Claim Worksheet.
Restriction to Delete details or Add new details to balances on Authorized worksheets if the balance is part of an SBG, even if the change does not affect the balance amount.

Problem:
Misc Accounting Orders – Exchange Rate Date Field Not Visible

Solution:
For Retrocession Calculation Order Group, make the window slightly higher, so that all the fields within the group box named Order becomes fully visible, i.e. also the Batch Template field. Both in View and Edit mode.
For Retrocession Estimation Calculation Order, when resizing the window, the allignment should follow the other accounting orders, i.e. the bottom half of the window should stick to the bottom border of the window and the split should be in the middle of the window, above the group boxes Override and Worksheet Details Override.

Problem:
System abends when using the option 'Generate Payment Request'

Solution:
When the user selects the option Generate Payment Request from a highlighted Settlement Balance Group, make sure the system does not abend, but is able to open the generated remittance balance. In case the SBG contains balances on Worksheets in status Authorized, then this operation shall be interrupted, else the remittance can be created.

Root Cause:
Enhancement case SE-17976 in version 23.1

Problem:
Sum up premium values from child sections on Non-Proportional Treaty and at least one of the sections has Premium Type 'Flat Premium, EPI on Main Section is wrong.
This happens only when section with Fixed Rate is summed up first

Solution:
When having sections with different Premium Types, at least one having 'Flat Premium', and their values are summed up, the EPI amount on the parent section should be equal to EPI amount from all summed up sections with Premium Type ‘Fixed Rate’ + the ‘Period 100%’ amount from Instalments tab of all summed up sections with Premium Type ‘Flat Premium’.

This should work in the same way independent on which order the sections are summed up.

Problem:
Deduction Percentage is defined as negative on the Business Highlights.

Solution:
When there are deductions defined on the Deduction Conditions, both on AB and on outward business, without any entry code defined in the actual Deduction Type (i.e. no mapping in the system parameters, Accounting, Entry Codes), then the system must show these deductions as 'normal' on the business highlights, i.e. as positive percentages in black color.

Problem:

-Reporting Units are listed as available on the Business Classification even if they are not valid for the base company with the 'base company role' e.g. Reinsurer on Assumed Business. They are listed when e.g. only the Cedent on the assumed business is a valid base company.
-The same Reporting Unit is listed as available multiple times when it is valid for several base companies on the business.

Solution:

-If a Reporting Unit has listed base companies, this Reporting Unit should be available only for business with these base companies. In the cases where the base company does not have the 'base company role' on a business, only a different role like Cedent on an assumed business, this should not make the reporting unit available on the business. 
-When several Reinsurers are assigned to the same Assumed Business and they all are listed as Base Companies in the reference data under a particular Reporting Unit, this reporting unit should be available for this business, but it should be shown as available only once. 

Problem:

For Outward Cedent' Contract, when Premium Type is 'Flat Premium' and you select to sum up premiums from sub sections to higher section, the system abends.

Solution:
On Outward Cedent's Contracts, summing up period premium from sub sections to main section, the system should not abend but sum up the premium.
Also, if deleting a section with a flat premium being part of a sum up, the system should not abend. Instead, it should delete the section. 

Problem:

System Calculated function ( #FUNC getCommissionsForIncurredLosses: 'Incurred Losses' andEstimatedPremiumIncome: 'Premium Income (PI)') ignores deduction basis when more than one commission type deductions are defined.    

Solution:

When System Calculated function (Commission) are in use and more than one commission type are defined, SICS should consider the deduction basis as defined in the deduction condition. 

Problem:
Abend on Find Business when typing in Business Partner field

Solution:
In the new business wizard (or any other place where you can add a Business Partner), system should not abend when trying to add a partner by typing ID/Name. System should give a list of partners matching your input so that user can select wanted BP from the list.

Problem:
System Calculated function ( #FUNC getCommissionsForIncurredLosses: 'Incurred Losses' andEstimatedPremiumIncome: 'Premium Income (PI)') doesn't consider 'Addition Commission'. 

Solution:

When System Calculated function 'Commission Amount' variable is in use to calculate the amount, Respective Estimation Item should have correct calculation which should driven on the previous functionality i.e. Total Percent of the Commission Types Minus Overriding Commission as per deduction basis.   

Problem:

The distribution towards ACR AAD is incorrect

Solution:

The ACR in AAD calculation is incorrect

Problem:

The system abends when attempting to create or edit FGU record

Solution:

The system should not abend, but allow creation or edit of the FGU Advisory, as per existing rules.

Problem:

Reinstatement Accuracy Rule for worksheet type appears on Stop Loss Business although Reinstatement Condition is not available for this type of participation

Solution:

The validation rule should only appear when Reinstatement condition is available-

Problem:
GOV TAX - CL WS 100Pct Gov Tax figure does not adapt when changing to our share

Solution:
When booking of Government Tax Trigger details on Technical or Claim worksheet, and user selects the 100% Figures on the worksheet so that the amount is grossed up to 100%, then the user gets the GT Target detail(s) calculated on the worksheet, they are correctly also displayed as 100% figures. Whn the user now untick the 100% Figures, the system must recalculate BOTH the GT Trigger and the GT Target details down to our share again, i.e. the initial amount. This must be done both when the user manually deselect the 100% Figures tick box and when it is automatically deselected when the worksheet is applied to the database (when the system parameter Automatic Conversion to Our Share is ON).

Workaround:
This recalculation down to our share both for the GT Trigger and GT Target details takes correctly place if you book both BEFORE you select the 100% Figures box on the worksheet and then deselects the box again (workaround for the reported issue).

Problem:

The interlocking claim menu button is missing when CEDE functionality is activated

Solution:

The menu button for interlocking claims should be available

Problem:

The business claim list AAD Reserves column does not include bookings towards Client IBNR AAD. Only Reserve AAD and ACR AAD are included

Solution

The column should include all AAD reserves - Reserves AAD, ACR AAD and Client IBNR AAD

Problem:

Misleading information in column for Base Company ID in FInd Claims

Solution:

The columns for Base Company ID should display the ID (or IDs), of the base company (or base companies) recorded on the insured period to which the claim is linked. 

Problem:

A claim status can be set to when no worksheets have been created, despite the Main Class of Business requiring a link

Solution

When Headline Loss link is required for Main Class of Business, the system should prevent closing of the claims without a link regardless of worksheets having been created or not.

 Root cause

SE-9630 

Problem:

Incorrect error message for missing reinstatement in Claim Worksheet despite reinstatement details not present, no balance.

Solution:

Do not raise reinstatement accuracy errors when these details are zero or not present.
 

Problem:

Abend when retrieving claim using the quick find on Desktop when there is a headline or dummy headline with same id in the database

Solution:

When using quick find option CLAIM, the system should only check for FRK_CLAIM:TYPE INDV, INDVM, INTR, ULC, V (and not consider FRK_CLAIM_TYPE HL or DHL).
When using quick find option HEADLINE, the system should only search for FRK_CLAIM_TYPE = HL (and not FRK_CLAIM:TYPE INDV, INDVM, INTR, ULC, V, DHL).
 
Workaround:

Retrieve the Claim using Find Claims

Root cause:

SE-11292

Problem:
Cannot assign a claim to next insured period although Loss Portfolio condition is defined

Solution:
When Loss Portfolio condition is defined, the validation that the Original Policy Period Start date is within Insured Period must be removed. This must work regardless of Claim Basis.

Problem:

 The Claim Action Date is cleared although expense reserves are still present when cost/expense are defined as 'In Addition To' (or similar)

Solution:

 When the parameter 'Validate Against Reserves' is activated for the Claim Action date, the system must validate that all reserves are zero regardless of Cost/Expense clause.

Problem:

AC0395 appears if booking reinstatement on claim worksheet when reinstatement condition has not been defined.

Solution:

AC0395 should not appear when the condition has not been defined.

Problem:

When using the moveClaim API to move a claim from one facultative claim program to another without providing the mandatory Move Claim option, the system abends.

The available values are

MoveClaimOnAnotherTreaty, (Move Claim from CP with single treaty to another CP with other single treaty)

MoveClaimOnSameSourceTreaty (Move claim from CP with single treaty to another CP on same treaty)

MoveClaimToAnotherClaimsProgram (move claim from CP with multiple treaty links to another CP)

It is however possible to move the claim although this option should not be available for facultative claim programs.

Solution:

The moveClaim API must be defined properly.

An error should be raised when the claim programs are facultative claim programs.

Problem:

• A worksheet is created in SIC via the “swap to worksheet” functionality of a TA emessage
• The worksheet then has it status updated as “Authorized” and then updated to “Closed” using the SICS API
• After this happens the “swap to worksheet” history on the emessage is no longer visible

Solution:
The Swap to Worksheet message event history entry should not be lost when a worksheet is closed and message automatically set to Processed.

Problem:
LinkTAReinstatementToCMReferenceRule can’t be turned off
How can we work around it to have Lloyds RIPs booked after referencing such RIP TA messages manually every time.
Setting the rule to warning does not solve the issue.

Solution:
LinkTAReinstatementToCMReferenceRule is raising a problem when there are no references in the message and as this rule does not allow booking when a problem is raised it is not possible to progress.
The problem raised in this case should be forced to a Warning and problems that are Warning should not consider the prevention of Swap to Worksheet flag on the rule.
It should be possible to manually select a Claim Booking from the ledger and continue to book the Reinstatement.

Problem:
The deposit condition release is set as next account and there was a booking in 2022 Q1 but not in 2022 Q2, the release in 2022 Q2 is missing. hence error message AC0392 Validation rule 'Premium Deposit Release' expects the worksheet 'New' to include a base detail for calculation appeared.

There was no Deposit Retained in 1.Q.2022 therefore no Desposit Release is expected in 2.Q.2022.

Solution:
Regardless of basis of retention, if there is no Retained booking in the applicable prior period then the absence of a Release booking should not raise a missing basis error. Only if there was a Release but no Retention would there be a (different, not-expected) error.

Problem:

The Claim Bdx indicator is not considered on claims created through eMessaging

Solution:

When claim condition of the insured period has bdx activated, the bdx indicator should be set on the claim. 

Problem:
Acord Placing message crashing on CheckContractCoverageType when coverage is unlimited

Solution:
Coverage amount validation should take consideration that the cover amount in SICS can be set to unlimited and thus not have an actual amount, The test and problem raised should consider this and report the difference from message amount to SICS.

Problem:
We have an item which appear to have been linked/accepted through FA 4267b9bf-5d0f-4875-b259-3292c1d959e5 but not included in the SBG and now when trying to link them on FA e9555000-a7c0-41fe-a708-85945688d739 where it belongs its not possible. FAIBalanceReferenceByAmountDisregardPartnerReferenceRule is used. The payment partners on the message and balance do not match.

Solution:
The rule FAIBalanceReferenceByAmountDisregardPartnerReferenceRule must match on message sender being on the balance (but not the reference).
If the Base Company of a balance does not match that of the message and cannot be paired together then such a balance should not be linked (accepted) on a FAI.

Problem:
For eMessaging when the Accounting Period From /To is set per Calendar As of Date method then if the Insured Period starts later than 1/1 the From Date is set Prior to Insured Period Start

Solution:
As per Manual Case, an eMessage booking should have the Accounting Period From Date set to the Insured Period Start Date if it would be prior per Calendar method.

Problem:
Walkback when selecting eMessage in BP Detail when there is no detail existing.

Solution:
When selecting eMessage in BP Detail and there are no details created yet then the empty window should be shown that allows editing if required.

Problem:
When processing the attached CM/TA message against a claim which is linked to a PROP business we get the FGUClaimAmountsValidation rule triggered:
However, the respective claim has not FGU indicator set:
And the respective business is also not “eligible” for FGU Indicator.

Solution:
When claim does not have the FGU indicator activated, FGU Booking rule should not be applied.

Problem:
Summary: when triggering the “createClaim” rule and no original policy period is part of the eMessage – the Original Period end date needs to be set as per the DOL end date if this is greater than the Insured Period End date.

To bypass this error, on the original policy period in claim module, the user must swap to claim and extend the original policy expiration to the date of loss.

Solution:
There are two use cases here – createClaim and updateClaim.

The expected behaviour for createClaim is that the Original Policy Period is populated (as these dates are mandatory in SICS).

If dates are provided in the message, these are used.

If no dates are provided in the message, typically contract period start and end date will be used.

If however the date of loss is > contractPeriodEndDate, the expectation is that the Original Policy Period To date is set to the date of loss.

updateClaim will not change the OPP dates already recorded on the claim.

Problem:
There’s no point in raising this error on a zero transaction to be booked.
Something also does not appear to be correct in how the message and the deduction condition are treated:
SICS amount 46.8

 <Brokerage> <BrokeragePercentage> <Rate RateUnit='percentage'>4.6875</Rate> </BrokeragePercentage> </Brokerage> </ContractSection> 

Somehow it rounds it to 4.69 but still raises the difference.

Solution:
As there is a difference in the amount then an error should be raised, the amounts should be aligned irrespective of it being a zero amount booking.
The error message amounts are being truncated and should be displayed showing all decimals in the message and SICS.

Workaround:
Review the deduction amounts in the message and SICS and align them in co-ordination with sender as applicable.

Problem:
Multiple possible claims found - cannot select the one to use is raised despite having a unique match when considering the OCR

We experience many instances on block claims but also regular claims where the “Multiple possible claims found - cannot select the one to use” is raised despite a unique match is possible when considering the OCR.

Solution:
Where the message contains an Original Claim Reference and there is a claim containing a matching reference of type Original Claim Reference than that should be located provided that the <LossPeriod>
<StartDate> also matches the Claim Date of Loss From. If there is a single match then that should be located.

Workaround:
Manually link the claim using the OCR.

Root Cause:
Query not correct on matching the claim reference type

Problem:
Lloyds Outward messages are showing incorrect referencing instead of correct referencing link.

When a message is uploaded and validated, the message finds the correct/matching referencing provided on the message against the SICS business value. In case of Lloyds Outward messaging, although the message correctly getting referenced to the insured but the referencing link is incorrectly showing.  

The outward Retrocessionaire participant (OIP) having the former business id which is matching with message value.
The message is also carrying the same value.

But when message is validated the, link says “Linked by Unique Market Reference” instead of “Linked by Former Business ID” which is incorrect.

Also, when the message is discarded it retains the link description but business is removed which is also incorrect.

Solution:
The correct method of referencing the Insured Period should be shown and additionally if the reference is removed (for example by discarding) then the method of referencing should also be removed.

Problem:
Original Message 4.Q – mapped and booked to BID 1233503 (inactive): 6bceae28-23d5-4cc0-8fe0-e8b1496158fe
Message in between 2.Q – mapped manually to BID 1247313 (= Previous Message of below Reversal Message): 979e454b-ec81-4774-b19a-3bce6f55f09f
Reversal Message 4.Q. – mapped through Previous Message to BID 1247313 but linked to booking on BID 1233503 (no new booking made by message as manual booking already available): ae6d7c58-2fea-4d27-bfdf-81df239bff00
-> why didn't we get an error that Business of Booking does not match the Business where Message has been mapped to?

Solution:
Do not reference to an Instalment (via Original message) if the Insured Period of the original message does not match the reversal message. If this is the case then raise a problem highlighting the missmatch.

Problem:
Reinstatement TA - the referred Claim Adj. Link is not shown on the message screen:
Despite being available on the history tab:
The worksheet should really be visible on the highlights tab.

Solution:
When a RIP TA is booking on a new worksheet (rather than an existing CW with claim payment) there is no referred claim adjustment shown on the highlights.,
In this case the current claim worksheet should be shown.

Problem:
Incorrect behavior with respect of automatic new claim creation - system assigns existing claim with same DOL but different claim reference
We are planning to automate new claim creation for a specific portfolio with V23.1 release this summer.
During the test phase we observe that the system does not generate a new claim if there exists already a claim with the same DOL.
The system assigns the existing claim with the same DOL to the msg without warning.

Solution:
Search for any claim section that is also referenced to the same insured period where the <Claim><LossPeriod<StartDate> matches the Date of loss on the claim and Sender Claim Reference on SICS claim is not present.

Root Cause:
London Market specific tests not considering sender (with references on claim section) may be B2B Broker or Cedent.

Problem:
Value on eMessage is with minus sign but value in SICS is with plus sign and this triggers the Error that “Previously Paid Amount does not match the sum of paid amounts for this claim.”

Solution:
Irrespective of an Entry Code being mapped or not, the previous amount from the message should be taken with the same basis sign of the payment in the message (generally unsigned). This should be the same if an Entry Code is mapped or not, given the Credit or debit of the mapping for Claim Paid and Previous are the same (generally Debit).

Problem:

Closed Worksheets does not flow into BO now. In BOAC table BOAC_STATUS for Oracle generated by SICS 23.1 there are no changes to the definition in the table. They still have the 'DEFAULT 0' definition instead of 'NOT NULL'. 

Solution:

Problem:

Accounting Year Quarter prompt not working in SAP BO 4.3 SP2 Patch 800 if user enter values manually

Solution:
Please update the below code in the Universe for Accounting Year Quarter

concat(concat(BOAC_DIM_TIME.AC_YEAR,' '),CASE WHEN BOAC_DIM_TIME.FRK_AC_REF_PERIOD IN ('AM01','AM02','AM03','AQ1','AYR','NONE','INI') THEN 'Q1' WHEN BOAC_DIM_TIME.FRK_AC_REF_PERIOD IN ('AHY1','AM04','AM05','AM06','AQ2','ATRI1') THEN 'Q2' WHEN BOAC_DIM_TIME.FRK_AC_REF_PERIOD IN ('AM07','AM08','AM09','AQ3','ATRI2') THEN 'Q3' WHEN BOAC_DIM_TIME.FRK_AC_REF_PERIOD IN ('AHY2','AM10','AM11','AM12','AQ4','ATRI3') THEN 'Q4' END) 

or retype the space ' ' manually in the current code.

Problem:

View V_BOAC_PC_FACT is not incompatible with 'Balance Report' object in the Aggregate Navigation and causing wrong SQL to be generated.

Solution:

In order for the right SQL to be generated we need to have the view V_BOAC_PC_FACT to be incompatible with “Balance Report” object.

Impact on Existing Data

If this is not defined then SQL generated by the report will become very strange and wrong.

Problem:

To make view  V_SETTLED_WITHOUT_PAIRING easier and with less tables inside it.

Solution:

To modify its script as:

 CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW V_SETTLED_WITHOUT_PAIRING AS SELECT   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BUS_LEVEL AS FRK_BUS_LEVEL,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BALANCE_TYPE AS BALANCE_TYPE,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.OBJECT_ID AS ACLB_OBJECT_ID,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.IDENTIFIER AS WS_ID,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FK_CURR AS CURR,    AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.BOOKING_YEAR AS BOOKING_YEAR,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BOOKING_PERIOD AS BOOKING_PERIOD,   COALESCE(AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.LEDGER_BAL_ORG_AMT,0) AS AMOUNT,   COALESCE(AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.LEDGER_BAL_UNS_AMT,0) AS UNSETTLED_AMOUNT,   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_SETLMNT_IND AS SETTLEMENT_IND,   CASE WHEN DRIVER.FK_BALANCE1 IS NULL AND FOLLOWER.FK_BALANCE2 IS NULL THEN 'Settled Without Pairing' END AS SETTLED_WITHOUT_PAIRING FROM   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE    LEFT OUTER JOIN AC_STL_PAIRING DRIVER ON DRIVER.FK_BALANCE1=AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.OBJECT_ID    LEFT OUTER JOIN AC_STL_PAIRING FOLLOWER ON FOLLOWER.FK_BALANCE2=AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.OBJECT_ID WHERE   AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.IS_ESTIMATE = 'N'   AND AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_SETLMNT_IND = 'S'   AND AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BALANCE_TYPE IN ('TECHNICAL','REMITTANCE','CLAIM')   AND AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.NO_TRANSFER_LDGR = 'N'   AND ( AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_STATUS = 'FINAL' OR AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_WORKSH_STATUS = 'C')   AND ( AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.IS_IN_ACCT_CURR IS NULL OR AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.IS_IN_ACCT_CURR = 'Y')   AND ( AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BUS_LEVEL IS NULL OR AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_BUS_LEVEL IN ('IAB','ORP'))   AND  DRIVER.FK_BALANCE1 IS NULL   AND  FOLLOWER.FK_BALANCE2 IS NULL ; GO 

Problem:

Drop BO Reporting views function dropping all the views with prefix V_ which may also include client specific views.

Solution:

Need to adjust the Drop BO Reporting function so that it will only drop default BO Reporting views.

Problem:

BO Reporting documentation in SICS Docs not updated

Solution:

Updated BO Reporting documentation in SICS Docs

Problem:

SQL is different dependent on where it is generated from. Support(SUPP) XML script are not executed successfully at SICS admin.

Solution:

BOAC SUPP scripts generated from the same place as BOAC4,5 etc. and need to write a correct call procedure statement.

Problem:

The user is not able to create a BO reporting view if a view already exists.

Solution:

Add the 'Create or Replace View' option for all the BO reporting database views so that the already existing database view will be replaced else a new view will be created.

Problem:

BOAC Setup - including BOAC support script in the BOAC log tables.

Solution:

If possible and feasible (since it is not a blocker) we can add the support scripts to the log table as requested by the client.

Description:
Problem:
In the Scheduled Jobs window, on the historic scheduled jobs tab only the first 200 jobs are shown and the 'more' button is greyed out.

Solution:
Enable the 'more' button when there are more jobs to display.

Problem:

When having only read rights for the security use case Business Administration, the system hides the Deduction Conditions button even if information exists.

Solution:

When having only read rights for Business Administration, the system should not hide the Deduction Conditions button when information do exist in it.  It should instead show the button as yellow and let the system open it to view.  

Workaround:
The following will let the user view the deduction conditions, however it will also give access to other functions.  It should therefore just be a temporary solution to e.g. print the Deduction Conditions or update it if needed, and then reset the access right back to the wanted set up (Read):

1.System Administration/ Security / User Role, 
2. Select the user role
2. On tab Access Right, select Edit
3. For the security use case Business Administration, add access right 'U' (update)

Problem:

Crash on ADH Find Now

Solution:

The SicsADHAbstractDocumentClass does not have access code functionality. But the Query Criteria sets the #accessCode in criteria. SicsADHDocumentCriteria should not have called #addAccessCodeTo(..) method. To remove this invocation from SicsADHDocumentCriteria**

Problem:

SICS upgrade 4.22.4 Check classification (domain retrieval) Deserialization issue in Axis 2 compatibility estimation item domain class the name field is of 30 characters that in for web services the XSD as be designed with name string as only for 10 characters that's why we getting this issue so it need to change in XSD.

Solution:

Need to fix the estimation Item NAME XSD
It can be seen that this is 30 long in SicsGeneralEstimationItemClass.buildTableDefinition(TableDefinitionBuilder) and marked as String10 in the XSD. This need to be fixed.

Problem:
we just deployed the new SICS 23.1. API Server version and experience the following major issue on executeSearch requests :

If seems the executeSearch now generates the following suffix on the sql statement WITHOUT AN ORDER BY CLAUSE :

OFFSET 1 ROWS FETCH NEXT 3001 ROWS ONLY

But this without an order by clause throws a jdbc exception, it should read e.g. :

ORDER BY 1 OFFSET 1 ROWS FEhe TCH NEXT 3001 ROWS ONLY

com.csc.cnu.errorhandling.NonRecoverableDatabaseError: A non-recoverable database error has occurred: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: Incorrect syntax near 'OFFSET'.

Solution:
For SQL run by Web Server API on SQL Server ensure that a default ORDER BY clause is added if there is no ORDER BY clause provided in the SQL

Workaround:
On API SQL ensure that an ORDER BY clause is provided

Root Cause:
Support for Paging added but no requirement for an ORDER BY clause in Web Service SQL on SQL Server although an ORDER BY clause is mandatory in this case.

Extent of Impact:
Web Server API SQL call on SQL Server

Problem:

1-based and 0-based indexing mismatch.

The XSD definition for startIndex is 1-based and the underlying paging query option in SICS is 0-based.
The conversion from 1-based to 0-based was not done in SicsWsDomainSearchEntryPoint#executeSearch.

Solution:

convert startIndex from 1-based to 0-based in SicsWsDomainSearchEntryPoint#executeSearch.

Problem:

Estimated items which are setup in Period Estimation rules to be applicable only on ORP level, or calculated directly on ORP level, are not correctly displayed or calculated when the Period Estimates on ORP are created and calculated from the OCC. 

Solution:

Make sure the Period Estimates on ORP are always correctly displayed and calculated also when it is created and calculated from the OCC

Workaround:

Create Period Estimates directly on the Retrocessionaire's Participations, or create them by running the Multi GAAP Recalculation Order

Problem:

Extended Booking Period not working

Solution:

Multi GAAP Accounting Order should populate the correct Booking year period even if Booking Terms (extended bookings details) are created with Base Company and Reporting Unit both are selected under Base company specific setting. 

Problem:
Web Service Time out on Instalment with Instalment amount 0.00

Solution:
Preconditions:
The system parameter 'Book Instalments automatically when setting registration complete flag' is ON
The system parameter 'Require Complete Registration' is ON

When setting the Registration Complete either manually or through web service, and the user replies OK on the message BS0834 telling me that the system will automatically book ALL instalment on ALL Sections on this Insured Period, then the system must ignore any instalments with zero premium amount and only try to book instalments with amount different from zero

Problem:
If an object is created/updated by one user and then another user deletes the object, then the event log records are not aligned and SICS tries to show the deleted object in the recents list, which causes the abend.

Solution:
Smarter handling of deleted objects.

Workaround:
the deleted object event log entry can be switched to the user account that created the object.

Problem:

SICS Configuration Manager doesn't work with Postgresql database.

Solution:

SICS Configuration Manager is fixed to work for Postgresql database.

Root Cause:

Database Schema and catalog information is not available when SICS is connected to Postgresql database.

Problem:

When copying a Multi GAAP Recalculation order, the list of businesses is not copied.

Solution:

When copying a Multi GAAP Recalculation order, make sure the list of businesses is also copied over to the new order.

Root Cause:

The system has always been like this.

Problem:

The Inception date is missing on portfolio programs created by copying an existing program.

Solution:

When creating a new portfolio program by copying an existing one, the Inception Date should be populated, in the same way as it currently correctly is when creating a portfolio program from scratch.  

Problem:
API - governmentTaxValidationActiveSpecified - defaults to YES

Solution:
When running the retrieveObject web service with SicsInsuredPeriodReference as reference object we should get the correct value retrieved from the field Government Tax Validation Active on the Insured Period, Validation tab for the actual Business.
In the response this is known as <governmentTaxValidationActive> and shall give the value true or false dependent if the Government Tax Validation Active is selected or not on the business.

Problem:

MGAAP Order 21 (MGAAPCALC) have not created all period estimates

Solution:

When Multi GAAP Recalculation Order is scheduled from the System Admin OR direct from the Order Window, It should be execute and the figures should be update on the listed businesses, as it works from the SICS workstation. 

Workaround:

User can execute the Multi GAAP Recalculation Order from the SICS Workstation.

Problem:

SICS crashes when Export Directory is NOT selected in P&C MTK Data Export function.

Solution:

SICS must not crash when Export Directory is NOT selected. Instead, it should work as in SICS 20.4 and return the message as 'Invalid directory/filename' in the status column.

Declination Reason:Root Cause:

This abend is caused by development of SE-10756 in 22.1

Problem:

We’ve noticed two behavioral differences in the SICS API that is currently in use in production (21.2 SSP12) and the new version (23.1 SSP2).

1. SELECT DISTINCT requires an ORDER BY to be specified, or there will be an error. SQL that is valid in SQL Server returns an error from the executeSearch endpoint.
'A non-recoverable database error has occurred: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified.'

In 21.2 SSP12, this error is not thrown (see “21_2_SSP12_executeSearch-distinct_order_by.log”)

In 23.1 SSP2, this error is thrown (see “23_2_SSP2_executeSearch-distinct_order_by.log“)

2. The numeric property representing the row number is not returned by the executeSearch endpoint.

In 21.2 SSP12, this property is returned (see “21_2_SSP12_executeSearch-row_number.log”)

In 23.1 SSP2, this property is not returned (see “23_1_SSP2_executeSearch-row_number.log”)

Solution:

Support queries such as SELECT DISTINCT without ORDER BY in the executeSearch operation on SICS API Server.

Problem:

We are receiving a ‘TOP cannot be used in the same query or sub-query as a OFFSET’ from the new SICS API version 23.1 SSP2 that does not exist in the current production version 21.2 SSP12.

SQL that is valid in SQL Server returns an error from the executeSearch endpoint.

Solution:

Support SQL queries with TOP in the executeSearch operation on SICS API Server

Workaround:

Rewrite query to not use TOP, paging mechanism can be used instead.

Problem:
API - recipient element missing in retrieveObject for type SicsLedgerBalanceReference

Solution:
When running the retrieveObject web service with SicsLedgerBalanceReference as reference object we should get the details for recipient field in SICS Business properties window.

Aim of function

When the user from a business Section is trying to either create a sub-Section, inactivate or delete this Section and there exists bookings on this section that have not been reversed, then the system should not allow this.  In addition, if the section of business link a claim, a sub-section can be created only if the status of the claim is inactive or close. A sub-section cannot be created if the state of the claim is open.

Business value for customers

Booking must be done on the lowest section level on a business and this section must be an active section. 

System Parameters Affected

Do not allow create Technical Worksheet for non-leaf sections

Do not Allow Inactive Section When Bookings on this Section is not zero

Create claim only on lowest leaf section level

Existing functionality affected

• Add Child Section
• Create Child Sections
• Inactive section

Aim of function

With Acord Standard 2016, claim related tax amounts are presented on the TA Claim Signing message then the referring CM message that creates the claim worksheet which presents the tax trigger amount should also automatically generate the target tax amount on the claim worksheet.

Business value for customers

Achieve automatic message processing for claim movements with tax amounts. After implementing this change there is no discarding of messages and no manual bookings necessary in case of claim related tax amount situation.

System Parameters Affected

Removed the following fields from Government tax rule table.
• 'Message Function excluded'
• 'Exclude All'
• 'Applicable for Technical WS'
• 'Applicable for Claims WS'

Existing functionality affected

The fields 'Applicable for Technical WS' and 'Applicable for Claims WS' are automatically updated to active from backend for all the Government tax rules.

Aim of function
When running the Mass Pairing of Technical/Claim Balances order implemented by enhancement case “TW-TW Mass Pairing” released in SICS 23.1, the below functionality is now added;

• The available Booking Year and Period currently is extracted from <default settings> of base company specific settings and not taken from specific base company settings for the given Base Company.

• If only one Base Company is given on the order, then only one Booking Year and Period shall be available and taken from this BCs default booking terms for Balance Pairing.
• If multiple Base Companies are given on the order, then the available Booking Year and Periods shall be the union of default booking terms for Balance Pairing from all the given Base Companies and the user have to select one of them.
• If there are no default booking periods defined for Balance Pairing for the given Base Company on the order, then the drop down for the Booking Year and Period is empty.
  When running the order, the system will only extract balances matching the Booking Year and Period on the order, i.e., existing functionality.
• Note! If the Booking Terms for the given base company have been changed after the order has been created, so that the Booking Year and Period field becomes blank and not visible on the order, then the validation of missing Booking Year and Period must appear if the user tries to run the order. This means, the user must edit the order and select a valid Booking Year and Period before the order ran.

• Text string in parameter was initially not position free. For example, if in system parameter “Reversal” is mentioned and in worksheet title “Reversal of TW1234” or “This is Reversal” is mentioned, then driving balance will not be extracted, as text string is not matching exactly. The string is now position free as per the requirement given, so that the balances on both of the above worksheets are extracted. Additionally, it is made none case sensitive, i.e., if the text string in the system parameter is “Reversal”, then worksheet with title “Reversal”, “REVERSAL” and “reversal” shall be extracted.

• If Business partner is not given in order and we have balances to pair from different Business IDs with different partners, then pairing is not done when we run the order. If balances of 2 different Businesses have same Business Partner, then pairing can be done. The pairing now take place even if multiple business partners are provided in the order.

• If Closed Date is not defined in order, then the system is not doing any pairing. When a new order is created, the Closed Date is defaulted to today’s date and this will work fine. If the date is changed to an earlier date this will also work fine. But if the date is removed then the system now acts as if the current date is given in the Closed Date field.

• Functionality to view multiple business partner field in new mass pairing order, which was implemented for Mass Pairing in the enhancement “Manual BP Entry in Business Partners in Mass Pairing” (SICS 23.1), was missing in the new order. This is now implemented for the Mass Pairing of Technical/Claim Balances order.

• In the Mass Pairing of Technical/Claim Balances Order window, a new tick box with the label “Exclude Inactivated Business Partners” is added. It is placed below the Business Partner(s) field. If this new tick box is selected (this is the default value) when the order runs, the system will check each partner on the balances before the matching takes place and if a partner (either on the driving or the included balance) in the pairing is not Active (the Active box is not selected in the partner's properties), then this partner is ignored and the pairing cannot take place. If the box is unticked on the order, the system will also do pairing between balances even if the partner involved is inactivated.

• The update of pairing information in Notes on the Driving Balance in the pairing will be updated AFTER the existing text, i.e. at the end of the Notes page for this balance.

Business value for customers

When reversal of technical or claim balances have been done by users without access right to perform balance pairing, the system will leave the two balances Unsettled.  Then the user with access right to perform balance pairing will be able to run this new mass pairing order so that all reversed source and target balances becomes automatically paired and settled.

System Parameters Affected

Driving Balance String for Mass Pairing of Technical Balance

Existing functionality affected.

Balance Pairing of Source and Reversal Worksheet.

Aim of function

To display a validation error message - 'Over Settlement of Balances not Allowed' - whenever any of the balances (Driving Balance or Follower Balances) involved in the balance pairing process have an unsettled balance with a sign opposite to its original balance. This is to ensure that neither the Driving Balance nor the Follower Balances get over-settled.

Business value for customers

This will enable clients to prevent the over-settlement of balances as it is not possible to over-settle balances in the General ledger.

System Parameters Affected

A new System parameter - 'Prevent Over Settlement of Balances While Pairing' under Accounting> Balance Pairing

Existing functionality affected

• Manual Balance Pairing
• Balance pairing through createBalancePairing web service

Aim of function

To ensure that a definite contract is ready to be processed, the system offers the possibility to indicate that the registration is complete. Sometimes there are regulatory requirements stating that a contract cannot commence before the contract’s start date has reached today's date. When setting the registration to complete, the system should therefore ensure that today's date is equal to or greater than the insured period from date.  

Business value for customers
Meets regulatory requirements.
No contract is complete before the start of the contract period

System Parameters Affected

Require Complete Registration
Prevent Completion Before Period Start

Existing functionality affected

Maintain Registration Complete on existing business
Create Business
Update Business
Change Business Life Cycle Status
Renew Business Manually
Maintain Business in Programs
Maintain System Parameters
Set Registration Complete by Web Service

Aim of function

The EDI component of SICS will no longer supported in 23.2 and higher. The EDI component will continue to be supported in older versions for as long as they are contractually supported. The functionality is still present for viewing historical data. It will not be supported in DXC Assure Reinsurance.

Business value for customers
N/A

System Parameters Affected

N/A
Existing functionality affected

N/A

Aim of function

Introduce a new Modify rule which takes the Technical Account (TA) eMessage Due Date instead of the Instalment Due Date. When linking a Technical Account (TA) eMessage to an instalment and with this rule active, the Due Date of the TA eMessage should be used, instead of the P/L Instalment Due Date. If TA eMessage does not contain any Due Date, the P/L Due date will be used.
The new rule prevents the Due date in the Technical Account (TA) message to be replaced by Instalment due date from DXC SICS, on the Technical Worksheet (TWS). As-is, this creates a mismatch between the Financial Account (FA) due date and the Technical Worksheet (TWS), also the Balance doesn’t settle on the Business Ledger (BL).

Business value for customers

The new rule prevents mismatch between the Financial Account (FA) due date and the Technical Worksheet (TWS). Also, the balance the Business Ledger (BL) will be correct using this new rule.

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

Process eMessaging messages

Aim of function
For B2B/eMessaging , the parameter “Keep Own Incurred” is to be considered the same way as it is for manually created FGU Advisory entries.

Business value for customers
Achieve the functionality of a parameter through eMessaging.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing of eMessages (B2B)

Aim of function
Introduce the ability to reject the Settlement messages with an error indicator.

Business value for customers
When rejecting the Financial Account Items individually or simultaneously, the system will send an 'Acknowledgement' with an error indicator.
When rejecting the Settlement message, the system will send an 'Acknowledgement' with an error indicator.
Applicable for both B2B and London Market messages.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected

Processing eMessages.
 

Aim of function
Set “State Location” on a claim, during the automatic claim creation.

Business value for customers
When creating the automatic claim (using any of the available options) from the eMessage, the system will generate the respective 'State Location' in the 'Locations' field of a claim, only if the mapped sub entity on the message is under the 'Risk Territory' of the contract.
• If the mapping is not defined or the message does not contain any sub entity 'Location', then it will work as it was working previously.
• If the mapped sub entity on the message is not under the 'Risk Territory' of a contract, then it will work as it was working previously.
Applicable for both B2B messages, and London Market messages.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing eMessages.

Aim of function
System to update the respective Class of Business on the claim during the automatic claim creation.

Business value for customers
When creating the automatic claim (using any of the available options) from the eMessage, the system will generate the respective class of business on the claim, only if the mapped class of business on the message is matched with the class of business on the contract.
• If the mapping is not defined or the message does not contain any class of business, then it will work as it was working previously.
• If the mapped class of business on the message is not matched with the class of business on the contract, then it will work as it was working previously.
Applicable for both B2B messages, and London Market messages.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing of eMessages.

Aim of function
Set the flag “Allow change Applies to First Message for Claim” to true on rule ValidateClaimHeadlineLossWhenNoUniqueMatch.

Business value for customers
The customer can select/unselect the flag “Only applies to first message for claim” on rule properties of the ruleset. The system defaults the flag “Allow change Applies to First Message for Claim” to true on the rule “ValidateClaimHeadlineLossWhenNoUniqueMatch” and by this flag system administrator is able to select the flag “Only applies to first message for the claim” on rule properties of the rule set.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing of eMessages.
 

Aim of function
To introduce a new modifier rule ModifyClaimReferenceIgnoreDateOfLoss that will eliminate a ClaimReferenceRule requirement for Date of Loss (DOL).

Business value for customers
When the new rule ModifyClaimReferenceIgnoreDateOfLoss is on, the system will not consider the need for matching Date of Loss (DOL), and it attaches a claim only if any claim references on the message match with the references on a claim. If the rule is not in force, then it will work as previously.
Applicable for both B2B and London market messages.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing of eMessages.
 

Aim of function
To set the flag “Allow change Applies to First Message for Claim” to true on rule LloydsRiskCodeValidationRule.

Business value for customers
The customer can select/unselect the flag “Only applies to first message for claim” on rule properties of the ruleset. The system defaults the flag “Allow change Applies to First Message for Claim” to true on the rule LloydsRiskCodeValidationRule and by this flag system administrator can be able to select the flag “Only applies to first message for the claim” on rule properties of the rule set.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing of eMessages.
 

Aim of function
Introducing a new matching rule “Contains” in reference data table 01217, which can be used by PreviousMessageMappingRule.

Business value for customers
Introducing the new matching rule enables to select the matching rule “Contains” in the previous message mapping.
When it is selected for any of the XML components, using the PreviousMessageMappingRule, the system will check if the previous message xml component value is contained in the current message or not. If it is, then the system will make an automatic reference of business/claim on the Lloyds TA RIP Message.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Processing eMessages

Aim of function

Generate and publish SOAP API Documentation on SICS Docs. The generated documentation in this release will provide basic information on the available APIs and some simple statistics, such as count of webservices per entry point, total, etc.
The new solution will eventually replace the hand written Word documents with 'doc-as-code' that generates full documentation from the API specifications.

Business value for customers
Provide easily accessible, up to date generated documentation for SOAP webservices for SICS API Server.

System Parameters Affected
None

Existing functionality affected
None