Release documentation - P&C Enhancements and requests

Problem:

Backdated Due Date

Solution:

Preconditions: The system parameter Do not default Due Date before Booking Date is ON

When the above parameter is selected and the user creates the first detail on a Technical Worksheet, the system correctly sets the Due Date equal the Booking Date unless it is defaulted to higher than the Booking Date.
Even if the user change e.g. the Insured Period or the Accounting Year/Period on the first detail, the system keeps the Due Date equal the Booking Date.

But if the user adds a second detail and on this detail change the Insured Period or the Accounting Year/Period, then the system also resets the Due Date accordingly, without checking if it is smaller than/before the Booking Date.

This must be changed so that the system 1) again checks the system parameter, if it is ON, then 2) the system must check if the Due Date is equal or greater than the Booking Date on this detail and a) if it is, then set the Due Date equal the Booking Date or b) if it is not, then the system shall reset the Due Date according to 'old' functionality, i.e. based on administration conditions.

Workaround:

When a second detail is added to the worksheet and the user change the Insured Period or Accounting Year/Period on this detail the Due Date should be reset manually by the user before further details are added.

Root Cause:

The new system parameter and the functionality was implement in version 22.3/4.9.3_SSP8 by enhancement case SE-12820

Extent of Impact:

The Due Date can be reset to a date before the Booking Date by mistake and that is not wanted/allowed.

Problem:

FX rgloe not considering remittance member for offset

Solution:

Preconditions:

System parameter 'Include Realized Gain/Loss In FC Revaluation' is ON and system parameter 'When Pairing, always use Remittances as the driving Balance is OFF.

When balance pairing takes place between a driving remittance balance and the user includes first a technical balance and then a remittance balance, the system must add together the functional currency amounts on all remittances, both the driving remittance balance and the included remittance balance(s) when calculating the Current Amount in the FC Revaluation row for the included technical balance(s).

This must work in the same way as if the user first include remittance balance(s) before the technical balances are included.

Problem:

Walkback on Adjustment Premium Order

Solution:

When an amendment is null on the Single Adjustment, use the amendment of lifecyclephase to which the Single Adjustment belong to.

Problem:
Functional Currency Revaluation row gets the wrong sign of Current and Previous Amount if remittance has same sign as the technical balance it is paired with.

Solution:
Preconditions: System parameter Include Realized Gain/Loss in FC Revaluation is selected.
When pairing takes place between a remittance and a technical balance, and the sign of the remittance amount is the same as the sign of the technical balance, the system must make sure the Current Amount and the Previous Amount in the functional currency revaluation row created in this operation are negated and shown with opposite sign than the Original Amount for this technical balance.

Workaround:
It seems that the above situation is not possible if the system parameter 'Prevent Over Settlement of Balance While Pairing' is selected.

Problem:
Weird Behavior in Matching both BP Name and BP ID

Solution:
On the Mass Pairing order, if you enter a string in the Business Partner's field that has a match within a BP Name AND is also a BP Id, and the user selects the Tab button in the keyboard, then nothing happens in the first place, but if you hit it once again, then the system will replace the string with the Business Partner matching this as BP ID, which is correct, but the strange thing is that the system also lists again the business partners with a Name with the given string in it. This list shall not be displayed again when the given BP Id has been replaced by the correct BP Name.

Workaround:
By tabbing out twice the system will correctly replace the given BP Id with the correct BP Name, just ignore the list of suggested BP Names matching the string.
If the BP Name matching the given string is to be selected then you must either double click on the wanted BP Name, or highlight it and press Enter.

Root Cause:
This issue was not introduced by SE-10708 but has been there since we implemented this feature, i.e. it is also in Find Business.

Problem:
Create Balance Pairing raise domain restriction message AC0329 even when no Exchange Diff is shown in the pairing. 

Solution:
When Balance Pairing takes place by a user with the Domain Restriction 'Accounting Balance Pairing Exchange Amount Limit' assigned, the system shall NOT raise the message AC0329 because of this domain restriction if there is no exchange difference shown in the pairing window. This security error message shall only be present when the sum of exchange differences exceeds your defined limit in the domain restriction.

Problem:
Error (SE-9765) : The mass pairing of techncial/claim balances could pair the balances with multiple matching

Solution:
When running the Mass Pairing of Technical/Claim balances order, the system must also check if there are multiple balances with a Worksheet Title matching the string in the system parameter field Driving Balance String for Mass Pairing of TW/CW, with the same currency and amount. The system shall not do pairing with this as the driving balance if it has a duplicate.

Workaround:
Do not use the text string in the system parameter 'Driving Balance String for Mass Pairing of TW/CW' on worksheets that are NOT meant to be used as driving balance in the mass pairing of TW/CW balances. This string should only be used when the balance is a reversal and shall be used as Driving balance in the mass pairing.

Problem:
SICS server rejects non-remittance balances for driving balance in createBalancePairing SOAP.

Solution:
When running the web service createBalancePairing the system shall accept both remittances and technical/claim balance in the element drivingBalanceReference. As long as the pairing follows the online logic and the online validation of the combination of balance types it shall not be invalid to give a technical/claim balance in the drivingBalanceReference field.

Problem:
When there are multiple matchings of the driving balances, the mass pairing order creates wrongly unmatched balance pairings

Solution:
When running the Mass Pairing order, and the system has performed a balance pairing between a driving remittance balance and a matching technical balance then the system shall NOT be able to include this technical balance again in a balance pairing with a second matching driving remittance balance. The second driving remittance balance must remain Unsettled unless it can be paired with another matching technical balance. One balance can never be included and used twice in balance pairing.

Problem:
Performance issue when select 'Show All Bookings' on Technical worksheet (correction of SICSR-25850 not satisfying for client)

Solution:
There are 192 time loops to run his.addLedgerReplacementDetail(ent) which need 90 seconds for each loop.
And if change the code that SicsAccountingWorksheetAddDetailBp.shouldSignalEachDetail = false, it can extremely reduce to 3 seconds for each loop, because it will no signal for all details, but only add one detail (aggerate previous all closed TW's previous amount ) which is necessary for the show all checkbox

Problem:
When trying to book Loss reserves or also Deposit via Replacement values on TM worksheet (BID 1166144), we get unexpected error and SICS gets turned off. By clicking on replacement values we get additional columns with New Amount a Pervious Amount, these columns have now populated values with walback message instead of usual figures. When trying to update the amount into New Amount the unexpected error occurs and SICS is turned off. Attaching screenshots for your easy reference.

Solution:
When the user selects the Replacement Values tick box on a Technical Worksheet, the system shall always be able to present an amount in the column Previous Amount and New Amount (including the amount of zero if there are no previous bookings in this entry code), also after a detail has been added and later deleted on the worksheet before the Replacement Values box is selected.

Workaround:
Once seeing the abend text, do not enter anything in Previous Amount or New Amount, but instead select UNFI worksheet and re-open to continue as normal

Problem:
System Parameter 'Use RU from OCC/ORP in AC' behaves incosistently

Solution:
When the system parameter 'Use RU from OCC/ORP in AC' is selected, the system shall follow the logic for this system parameter and replace the Reporting Unit in the Accounting Classification on the As Original booking with the RU on the OCC if the RU on the source booking is not found on the OCC. This logic must be used also if the above system parameter is set after bookings already existing on the OCC. The system normally looks at existing Accounting Classifications on the OCC to pick from this, but with this parameter selected the system must ignore the Invalid ACs (if it is invalid because of the RU not found on the business) and instead create new valid ACs with a Reporting Unit taken from the OCC.

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected:
Make an update script to replace the invalid Accounting Classifications on given OCC and ORP bookings where the RU is wrong with valid Accounting Classifications where the RU is correct. 

If an Accounting Classification is Invalid because it contains a Reporting Unit not existing on the Business and this AC is linked to booking details on the given OCC/ORP business, then this invalid AC shall be replaced by a Valid AC with the exact same element values except for the Reporting Unit. 

The Detect Script shall list all ACs used in bookings and all ACs found on the Business/IP (given by the user), then the user must copy the object id of the invalid AC used in the booking with a valid AC found on this business, in an Update Script and run the script for each AC that is invalid.  This must be repeated for all businesses with invalid ACs that they want to correct. This correction is not possible to do in a simple way and need user interaction and decision for which Business and AC to be updated.

Problem:

Some Accounting Use Cases are missing description

Solution:
Update the Name and Description in all Accounting Use Case definitions where these are blank.

Below is the list of use cases for Which Either Name/Description or both are missing and are all updated as part of this case:

Problem:

Booking Year/Period increased for Loss Reserves/Portfolio details are increased regardless of whether the parameter hen Reserve condition is defined and Accounting Basis is not Clean Cut and bookings have not been transferred to Next Insured Period

Solution:

The system should use the same booking period/month as inward when the parameter 'Same as inward' is set, also for Reserve and Portfolio details, provided this is still open, unless the Booking Year/Period is given under Worksheet Details Override on the Retrocession Calculation order, then use this.

If this override is not given on the order, then the Booking Period for these details shall be increased by one if, and only if, the system parameter 'BookingPeriod ForReserve/Portfolio Entries Increased By One' is selected.

If the booking period of source booking is the last booking period (Ex: M12) the booking year will be increased and the period will be the first in the next year (Ex: M01),
otherwise only the booking period will be incremented to next on target booking.
 

Problem:
Final Remittance still can be edit additional classification 2&3

Solution:
When a Remittance is in status Final and it is opened in Edit mode, make sure the fields Rem Class 2 and Rem Class 3 on the More Details tab, behaves in the same way as the field Rem Class 1, i.e. that the fields are disabled and cannot be changed by the

Problem:

Mass pairing order - Incorrectly pairs RWS with estimated unsettled TA worksheets

Solution:

When running the Mass Pairing Order and the system looks for matching balances to be paired with the remittances, then the system shall only look at balances with the IS_ESTIMATE flag set to false (N). This means the Mass Pairing shall only be between Remittance balances and ACTUAL Technical/Claim balances (not Estimate balances).

Problem:
After SWAP to Worksheet Accounting Period and Due Date Update is not

Solution:
When a technical worksheet is created by eMessaging (swap to worksheet) and the user change the value of any of the balance informations in any of the rows, then the system must also update update ALL the other rows with the same value belonging to the SAME balance. If the worksheet contains of 4 details, all in the same balance, and the user updates e.g. the AccPeriod from 1st of 4 to 2nd of 4, then the system shall update automatically the AccPeriod on all 4 details to 2nd of 4.

Problem:

Missing UPR Computation for Premium Booked Prior to year 2018.

Solution:

When 'Use Insured Period as Earning Period' option has been selected on the UPR order, It should consider the whole IP of the contract even if Contract have more than 4 Year insured period and perform the calculation as per selected calculation method.
 

Problem:
Generate duplicate invalid AC on IGC IAB when check system parameter 'Make Valid AC from IAB on IGC bookings'

Solution:
Preconditions: System parameter 'Make Valid AC from AB on IGC bookings' is selected.

When bookings take place on Intragroup Contract Assumed Businesses coming from ORP bookings, then the system will link these bookings to existing Accounting Classifications on the IGC IAB similar to the AC coming from the ORP, first look for valid AC, then invalid AC. If no matching ACs can be found, then the system will create a new AC based on the elements coming from the ORP booking, either it will be a valid AC if that is possible or a new invalid AC shall be created on the IGC IAB.

Problem:

Abend when I run a 'retrocession calculation order' with NULL in the Planned Run

Solution:

If the user removes the Planned Run, Date or Time Stamp on a Retrocession Calculation Order, or any accounting orders, the system must perform a syntax validation and present an error message that mandatory information is missing.

Workaround:

Do not remove the time stamp in the Planned Run field.

Problem:

Entry Code Transformation doesn't work correctly when attaching an OCC to an IAB

Solution:
Business case: There are booking details with different entry codes (including code 10 and 20) on an Assumed Business not yet protected. There is also a Fac OCC with an Entry Code Transformation Term (ECTT) where one Entry Code (10) shall be transformed to another Entry Code (11) when it is booked on the Fac OCC, and there is also another Entry Code (20) that shall be supressed and not booked on the Fac OCC. When this Fac OCC is added on the Proportional Protection of the Assumed Business the system correctly makes retro active correction bookings on the Fac OCC from the source bookings on the AB, i.e. the details with EC 10 is correctly booked as EC 11, but the system also book EC 20. The latter is wrong and the system must be corrected so that also entry codes that are defined to be supressed in the ECTT are not booked on the Fac OCC.

The above correction must have effect both when the Fac OCC is added for the first time and also if it is has been removed and reattached on the PP.
 

Problem:

Entry Code Transformation doesn't work correctly when change retroceded share

Solution:
Business case 1: An Assumed Business is protected by Fac OCC with an Entry Code Transformation Term (ECTT) where one Entry Code (10) shall be transformed to another Entry Code (11) when it is booked on the Fac OCC, and there is also another Entry Code (20) that shall be supressed and not booked on the Fac OCC. When booking takes place on the AB with entry code 10 and 20 then the EC 10 is correctly transformed to 11 and EC 20 is not booked on the Fac OCC. When retroceded share is changed for this Fac OCC the system correctly makes retro active correction bookings on the Fac OCC from the source bookings on the AB, i.e. the necessary correction of EC 11 is booked, but the system also book EC 20. The latter is wrong and the system must be corrected so that also entry codes that are defined to be supressed in the ECTT are not booked on the Fac OCC in this retroactive correction logic.

Business case 2: An Assumed Business is protected by Fac ORP with an Entry Code Transformation Term (ECTT) where one Entry Code (10) shall be transformed to another Entry Code (11) when it is booked on the Fac ORP, and there is also another Entry Code (20) that shall be supressed and not booked on the Fac ORP. When booking takes place on the AB with entry code 10 and 20 then the EC 10 is correctly transformed to 11 and EC 20 is not booked on the Fac ORP. When retroceded share is changed for this Fac ORP the system correctly makes retro active correction bookings on the Fac ORP from the source bookings on the AB, i.e. the necessary correction of EC 11 is booked, but the system also book EC 20. The latter is wrong and the system must be corrected so that also entry codes that are defined to be supressed in the ECTT are not booked on the Fac ORP in this retroactive correction logic.
 

Problem:
Settlement Balance Group cannot pair with remittance

Solution:

Preconditions:
System Parameter 'Balance Pairing across Base Companies/Legal Reporting Units not allowed' is NOT selected.
'Balance Pairing Across Base Companies' is NOT selected on the partners properties for the involved Base Companies.
In the Balance Pairing the Driving balance is a single Remittance, i.e. not a Grop Remittance.

When balances linked to different Base Companies are grouped in Settlement Balance Group and a Remittance is linked to this SBG so that the user can select the option Automatic Balance Pairing, the system shall be able to perform the pairing 

It is only if the above system parameter is selected that the user shall be prevented by error message ACBP002 - pairing not allowed because it contains balances linked to different base companies, OR the 'Balance Pairing Across Base Companies' IS selected on the partners properties but the involved BCs in the SBG is NOT linked together.

Problem:
Retrocession Account Order – Balance Split Options not visible in SICS 23.2 SSP02

Solution:
On the Retrocession Account Order, make sure all 5 tick boxes in the group box Balance Split Options becomes correctly visible.
The Balance Split Options group box must also be changed on the Retrocession Calculation order so that all 4 tick boxes are correctly visible.

Workaround:
none

Root Cause:
SICSR-26750 in 23.2

Problem:
When remove Assumed Business from OCC itself the As Originals bookings are not updated

Solution:
Disable 'Remove' option to avoid incorrect retrocession (reversal not done) at Assumed business list of a Proportional OCC.

Workaround:
Remove the OCC protection from the Proportional Protection conditions on the Assumed Business itself. This will make the necessary correction bookings on the As Original ledger of the OCC.

Problem:
Abend when pressing 'Calculate' on open Business Ledger

Solution:
When pressing Calculate on Business Ledger the system shall be able to calculate and display the correct figures without abending.

Root Cause:
This problem has been introduced by some clean-up in the code, but unfortunately went wrong, in version 23.1 by project SE-17278 and same problem inherited in the porting to 22.2_SSP12

Problem:

Error Updating Received External Date

Solution:

Preconditions:
in the Base Company Specific Settings, under Technical/Claim Worksheet, the system parameter 'Is Received Internal Date On Worksheet In Use' must be selected.

When booking on multiple business on the same worksheet, Technical or Claim, and the user change the Received External date for one of the businesses, the system correctly raises message AC0723 asking if this change shall apply only to this Business.
If user replies No to this message then the system correctly change the Received External for all businesses and also sets the Received Internal date (for the entire worksheet) to the same.
If user replies Yes to this message then the system must change the Received External date on the balance(s) for this business only and the Received Internal date for the entire worksheet, and KEEP this change also when navigates between the businesses on the worksheet and when Applying this worksheet.
Only if the Received External is higher than the Received Internal, then the message AC483 shall appear saying that the the Received External cannot exceed the Received Internal.

NB! in the database model the Received External date is stored on Balance level, while the Received Internal date is stored on the Worksheet level.

Problem:
Separate Balance indicator not inherited to Retrocessionaire Participation at Mass Renewal

Solution:
Make sure the Separate Balance flag on both the OCC and ORPs are correctly set both when the OCC is renewed and when the ORP is manually renewed and mass renewed, the latter is currently wrong and must be corrected.

Problem:

When searching by something that will a result in finding above 2100 items, the system abends. This happens for example when searching for businesses by use of a Unique Market Identifier which is similar on 2100 businesses (or insured periods) or above.

Solution:
When searching for businesses by use of Unique Market Identifier, the generated sub query should be optimized so that it does not include the UMR Identifier several times in the request.

Workaround:
Provide more search criteria:
The user should make sure to use specific enough search criteria, like a bigger part of the UMR identifier.

Problem:
Estimates for flat premium show non existent premium using variable Premium Optional Amount Non-Proportional.

Solution:
When Flat Premium type is selected in the Premium and Limit Conditions, the respective variable (( #FUNC getPremiumAmountForOptionCode: 'EXTERNALXLPREMI' 'External XL Premium' ) should show the value as per their value code.

 
Root Cause:
There is an impact of the correction case-SICSR-16944/SE-6756.

Problem:
Two issues:
A: When trying to Add Non Proportional Protection via Protection Program assignment and the only Program Part is Stop Loss, there is an incorrect message, as Stop Loss should not be possible to Add.
B: When trying to Add Non Proportional Protection via Protection Program and both Non Prop (XL Part) and Stop Loss (SL Part) exist on Protection Program, both Stop Loss and Non Prop Treaty is added - this is incorrect. Only Non Prop Treaty should be added.

Solution:
A: When there is no Non Prop protections in a Protection Program (no OCCs created in XL Part) - nothing should be possible to Add - any error message should reflect this.

B: When adding Non Proportional Protection via Protection Program and both Non Prop (XL Part) and Stop Loss (SL Part) exist on Protection Program, only Non Prop Treaty/ies should be added.

Workaround:
Do not attempt to link to Protection Program when there is no XL Part at the Insured Period which should be protected, as Stop Loss does not require any protection allocation link.

Problem:

Portfolio (PF) condition button not displayed on Non-Proportional Treaty business

Solution:

Make an update in the User's Guide, both P&C chapter 5.14 and Cede chapter 5.13 Handle Portfolio Conditions, so that it is clear that the Portfolio Conditions, the PF button, is available only on Proportional Treaty businesses, both Inward and Outward.

Problem:

Abend when opening FGU on a multi currency claim when Additional Case Reserve and Inuring is not in use

Solution:

Th system should open FGU without any abend

Workaround:

None

Root Cause:

SE-15014

Extent of Impact:

Multi currency FGU claim when ACR/Inuring is not activated

Problem:

Abend when attempting to close a claim worksheet which is in authorized status, and selecting this from 'Select open claim worksheet window'

Solution:

The system should close the worksheet in the same way as when opening the authorized worksheet by selecting worksheet properties from claim ledger column, and then changing status

Workaround:

Open the worksheet properties by selecting the worksheet properties by selecting the worksheet column from claim ledger, and select change status.

Problem:

The option to 'Import and Update Claim FGU from Spreadsheet' is still able to generate FGU Record , even when the FGU indicator on the claim is disabled

Solution:

The system should validate that FGU is enabled for the claims included in import file

Problem:

The Bdx indicator is displayed on Headline Loss, although it should only be available for regular claims.

Solution:

Ensure that the Bdx indicator is not available for Headline Losses, even though Bdx is in use (parameter activated)

Problem:

The calculate button on the HL Claim list disappears when tabbing out of the currency field

Solution:

The calculate button should be displayed and enabled

Problem:

Incorrect distribution towards ACR in AAD and CIBNR in AAD when own incurred is below retention

Solution:

Nothing should be allocated towards AAD if the own incurred is below retention

Only when either paid amounts / incurred amount / incurred + cibnr amounts / Own incurred are above retention, amounts should be allocated.

Maximum allocation whichever amount exceeds the retention, or remaining aad for group (group being paid, os, cibnr, acr - and this sequence)

Problem:

FAIBalanceReferenceRule raised with initial scheduler run and resolved automatically with subsequent one.

The subsequent scheduler run resolved it:

Why can a subsequent scheduler resolve an error raised previously even if the situation has not changed?

Solution:

If an FAI is automatically rejected by FAIBalanceReferenceRule then it should be re-referenced on a subsequent re-validation. A problem raised on an FAI that is automatically rejected should be retained and thus require resolution by a user. If the rejection reason is not resolved and the item should be rejected then a user must reject the item manually to confirm the rejection.

Problem:
We would like to report the following performance issue for eMessaging Claims movement search when Data Protection is enabled.
Find Now with Message Type Claim Movement, It takes minutes to complete.

Solution:
Message Find results for ClaimMovements without Show Details selected should not trigger the Claims Data Protection checks as they are not required at this point.
Only when Show Details (for Loss Description) or actually opening an eMessage for view should the Claim Data Protection check be made.

Workaround:

Root Cause:
Data Protection checked on find results which should not be required

Extent of Impact:
Claim Movement search with When Claims Data Protection is enabled

Impact on Existing Data
None

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

CM message Location country is not considered (not only the sub entity) when creating a new claim

Solution:

SE-19198 Automatic Claims Creation: set State Location based on CM message
Set 'State Location' on a claim, during the automatic claim creation.

This is now to be extended to apply also to a Country. If the location in the message is a Country and that Country is included in the Business Classification then it will be set as the Claim Location.

Problem:

New enhancement received in SICS 23.1
SE-19634 - Lloyds TA RIP - update previous message functionality

Several communications back and forth to confirm the required set up of this enhancement in SICS.

Testing confirmed that despite the correct mappings the claim is not indexed from the previous message

Solution:

If a message referencing to a claim has no claim references (including Lloyd's bulk reference) then it should link to a claim from a previous message mapped.

Problem:

SICS : Two-Way Query : 2016-10 : Querying Messages with an Informational Status : (UAT ENV11 - SICS 23.1 SSP10)

We note that it is possible to Query a message that has a Status of Informational in SICS.

In our case, we send a Business Validation ACK message when an inward Message is given an Informational status.

To the Broker – we have Agreed to the originating Message - and there is no Two-Way Query option available.

To RenRe – we have finished our SICS external activity – and we do not need to Query the Message.

Alas – SICS still allows us to Query Informational messages.

Is there an expectation that the Query option will be removed from messages with an Informational Status?

Solution:

Send Query should be disabled when the message status is Informational or Cancelled as well as Processed

Problem:

The TA validation fails (due to mismatch insured period) - this fails the ACORD Test Harness.

The ACK routine looks for the Contract ReinsurerReference (Insured Period ID) in SICS and not from the message. If it has not been found/matched – it leaves it out.

ACKs driven from CMs work because the Contract ReinsurerReference is not required. The Claim ReinsurerReference is – and it appears even when the matching Insured Period cannot be found.

Solution:

If there is no SICS contract referenced then use the value from the incoming message (which should be please_advise or some such.)

Problem:

When trying to book Loss reserves or also Deposit via Replacement values on TM worksheet (BID 1166144), we get unexpected error and SICS gets turned off. By clicking on replacement values we get additional columns with New Amount a Pervious Amount, these columns have now populated values with walkback message instead of usual figures.

When trying to update the amount into New Amount the unexpected error occurs and SICS is turned off. Attaching screenshots for your easy reference.

Solution:

When the user selects the Replacement Values tick box on a Technical Worksheet, the system shall always be able to present an amount in the column Previous Amount and New Amount (including the amount of zero if there are no previous bookings in this entry code), also after a detail has been added and later deleted on the worksheet before the Replacement Values box is selected.

Workaround:

Once seeing the abend text, do not enter anything in Previous Amount or New Amount, but instead select UNFI worksheet and re-open to continue as normal

We have reports of Previous and new OSLR amount being displayed as below

This one was created from UUID: 46850d42-a76b-4c17-a266-6d7e8afe6165
The user deleted one line for OSLR (where the message takes down the previous OSLR to zero), then added the change amount.
As you know, the message usually processes the OSLR by taking the existing OSLR to zero, then increase by the message/invoice amount.

Most of the Ops users are used to deleting one line of OSLR and just entering the change (or NEW amount) because that is how they were booking the manual TWS.

I’ve worked with the users and asked them to check the 'replacement values' first before deleting the OSLR line, then deleting one of the OSLR line.
This way did not result in what was captured above.

Workaround:
I was able to get around the issue by first checking the replacement value (before deleting the OSLR entry), identify the OSLR entry that is taking the existing OSLR down to zero, then delete that entry.
Once I’ve done that, the users were able to make the changes as necessary and check the ending reserve.

Problem: User Custom Object filters are not available in the PC Main Universe.

Solution: Need to create number of User Custom  object filters in the Universe.

Problem: 

When we checked the Limit and Share class objects in P&C Universe for latest version 23.3 we are able to see the latest information and when we try to report on this we can get latest valid information because view V_SJ_SHARE_LIM_COND is already fixed. But for extracting all the information instead of only latest information we are not having any such kind of objects.

Solution: 

We need to create a objects under new subclass Claim Limit and need to change the already existing class name from Claim Limit to Claim Limit – Latest and existing objects name to Object name – Latest. For Example: Before the object name was Limit Share Advise Date but after changing it will be Limit Share Advise Date – Latest .

For creating new objects, we need to create alias of CNU_LimCond, CNU_CURR_LimPay, CNU_ShareCond and CNU_CURR_LimInc and name as ALL_CNU_LimCond, ALL_CNU_CURR_LimPay, ALL_CNU_ShareCond and ALL_CNU_CURR_LimInc and give the joins between these alias and SJ_SHARE_LIM_COND. Below is the screenshot for reference

Problem:

When using the 23.2 or earlier universes the booking year period coming from Underwriters Estimate / GAAP Estimates / All Estimates is showing the wrong booking period. It has not been implemented correctly as it is showing 2015 Mont 01 instead of the correct 2015 Month 06.

Solution:

Three views(V_Earning_Period, V_EARNING_BYRP, V_EARNING_PERIOD_EXPIRY) need to be added in both SQL and Oracle databases and a few customized dimension objects should be available in the Universe.

As per the attached screenshot only 5 objects are available in the universe and still 6 objects (Booking year Period date-First Earning Period, Booking year period date- Earning period Expiry, Booking Year period date-Last Earning Period, Booking year period -First Earning Period, Booking year period-earning period Expiry & Booking year period -Last Earning Period) are not available in these universes. But these 6 objects also should be there.

Problem: 

Space is missing between First Name & Last Name for the objects Full Name& Entry code created by Full Name.

Solution:

Select statement for the objects needs to be adjusted so that there will be space between First Name & Last Name.

Problem:

There is missing parameter PINCREMENTAL_LOAD, for Oracle documentation for procedure BOAC004.

Solution:

To add this parameter PINCREMENTAL_LOAD, in document DXC SICS BI Reporting - Preparation of Tables used by Reporting.

Problem:

If we mark an estimate as settled, we are receiving null data on the report for settlement indicator objects.

Solution:

The SQL for the settlement indicator needs to be adjusted in such a way so that if there is an estimation balance/detail it will not take the settlement flag from AC_STL_PAIRING/BOAC_STL_PAIRING but rather from the AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FRK_SETLMNT_IND.

Problem: 

In delivery folder all universes are prefixed with 'P'.

Ex: Log universe saved in delivery folder as PLog universe. 

Solution: 

Need to change the name of the universes while exporting to delivery folder.

Problem:

Support and Development objects folders are not hidden.

Solution:

Need to change the position of Business Stamps folder from bottom to top and also need to hide Support and Development Objects Folder.

Problem:
Need to find the latest revaluation functional amount as well as the FX gain and losses for each balance at the time of the pairing.

Solution:
Add Balance Revaluation objects to the paired Balances to get the latest revaluation functional amounts.

Problem:

V_BALANCE_DATES_AFTER_PAIRING2 Table is missing in the PC Main Unified Universe.

Solution: 

V_BALANCE_DATES_AFTER_PAIRING2 needs to be created in the universe and it should have join with ACLB_B2 Table. 

Problem:

Join is defined incorrectly as Full outer Join between the tables REF_BookingPer and V_BOAC_STL_PAIR2.

Solution:

Join needs to be changed from Full Outer join to Right outer join between the tables REF_BookingPer and V_BOAC_STL_PAIR2.

Problem:

Alias table V_BALANCE_DATES2 for the table V_BALANCE_DATES is not present in the PC Main Universe.

Solution:

In order for the SQL to go faster Need to create an alias table V_BALANCE_DATES2 and need to have join with AC_STL_PAIRING.

And then Need to change SQL  for the objects from V_BALANCE_DATES to V_BALANCE_DATES2.

Problem:
Premium objects coming from the tables that are no longer linked to the structure in P Main universe.

Solution:
The objects coming from these 'old' tables need to be changed to the _MAIN equivalent in order to work them properly.

Problem:

In view V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING, first day of month is not defined as date so that's why object Pairing Booking Year Period Start Date and many other is not parsing and data is not coming in date format.

Solution:

Alter view V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING and correct the FIRST_DAY_OF_MONTH data type in all database.

Problem:
In this view V_BALANCE_TIMELINE.FIRST_DAY_OF_MONTH is not defined as a date and V_BALANCE_TIMELINE.BOOKING_YEAR_PERIOD is wrongly defined.

Solution:
Need to change the definition for that view with the right information. Attached is the script. This should give the right for SQL Server, modification of this needs to be done to Oracle, Postgresql, and MySQL.
CREATE OR ALTER VIEW V_BALANCE_TIMELINE.sql

Problem:

There are few Reporting database views that require little Adjustments in the scripts.

Solution:

V_BALANCES_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_ENTRY_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_ENTRYCODES_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_FC_REVAL_BAL_BYRP booking year period not defined as standard definition concat(concat()) needs to be added and take away RTRIM()

V_FC_REVAL_DTL_BYRP booking year period not defined as standard definition concat(concat()) needs to be added and take away RTRIM()

V_LINKED_BUS_PARTNERS missing but will probably come via an existing JIRA case from ACIM which is under development

V_SETTLED_WITHOUT_PAIRING comma out a few things which is not needed and in the view

V_FC_REVAL_BAL can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

V_FC_REVAL_BAL_LATEST can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

V_FC_REVAL_DTL_LATEST can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

Problem:

Full name Objects related to Business Partners are not present in the PC Main Universe.

Solution:

Need to create Full Name objects for the Business Partners in the same way that are available for Accounting Responsible & Payment Partners.

Problem:

Parameter 'MAX_IN_LIST_VALUES' is defined as '99' and the select statement for the object 'Created by' is not defined properly.

Solution:

Parameter 'MAX_IN_LIST_VALUES' should be defined as '-1' and the select statement for the object 'Created by' needs to be adjusted.

It should be like concat(concat(CNU_USER2.FIRSTNAME,' '),CNU_USER2.LASTNAME)

Problem:

Select statement for few objects are not defined correctly Also parameter value needs to be changed.

Solution:

Parameter 'MAX_IN_LIST_VALUES' needs to changed from '999' to '-1'. And select statement for the specified objects needs to be adjusted so that it will be like concat(concat( ,' ' ), ).

Problem:
There are  few join issues and one parameter Inlist value needs to be changed.

Solution:
Need to make some changes in join definitions where FRK/FSK is not defined correctly and change the parameter Inlist value= -1

Problem:
Having issues with two joins, the wrong concat() with a few objects and there is one parameter Inlist value that has to change.

Solution:
Need to make some changes in joins and objects along with the parameter Inlist value= -1

Problem:

There is wrong concat() with a few objects and there is one parameter Max_InList_value that has to change for the Task Manager universe.

Solution:

Need to change the definitions for the objects along with the parameter Max_InList_value= -1

Problem: 

Few objects are missing in the Universe when comparing with SICS screen, Also the existing objects are under same folder without any subfolders.

Solution: 

Missing objects needs to be created as per the SICS Screen and also categorize them into sub folders so that it will look similar as SICS Screen to find the object easily.

Problem:

BOAC005 Script Taking long run time when running Incremental loads.

Solution:

Need to update the BOAC005 Script with 3 DBMS_STATS commands as suggested to resolve the issue.

Problem:

To update and remove some of the views in P&C databases.

Solution:

Summary of changes:

V_BALANCES_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_ENTRY_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_ENTRYCODES_DATES take away RTRIM()

V_FC_REVAL_BAL_BYRP booking year period not defined as standard definition concat(concat()) needs to be added and take away RTRIM()

V_FC_REVAL_DTL_BYRP booking year period not defined as standard definition concat(concat()) needs to be added and take away RTRIM()

V_LINKED_BUS_PARTNERS missing but will probably come via an existing JIRA case from ACIM which is under development

V_SETTLED_WITHOUT_PAIRING comma out a few things which is not needed and in the view

V_FC_REVAL_BAL can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

V_FC_REVAL_BAL_LATEST can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

V_FC_REVAL_DTL_LATEST can be dropped as it is not used in the universe

Problem:

LOV SQL for few objects are defined wrongly based on earlier case.

Solution:

LOV SQL for the objects Former Business ID, Underwriting Year, Related OPP Business ID, Claim ID, Claim Name, Headline Loss ID, Headline loss Name needs to be adjusted as suggested.

Problem:

The object ‘Bank SWIFT Code’ is picking up the ‘Remittance Payment Partner Bank Swift Code’ as well, instead of just the ‘Remittance Base Company Bank Swift Code which in turn is creating a confusion.

Solution:

We need to change the name of the objects namely Balance (Original), Bank currency(code), Bank amount(original) etc., to the suggested names in the excel attachment and add a few objects namely Remittance Base Company bank account no., Remittance base company bank swift code, Remittance base Conv. Currency(code) and Remittance base conv. Amount(orig) to the universe so that they get the proper data at SICS level and reporting level.

Problem:

The premium amount booked on ORP is not getting updated correctly in the report.

Solution:

Need to adjust the definition of the objects Booked Premium Amt A & Rem to Book Premium Amt A to inherit the Premium amount Booked from OCC to ORP.

Problem: 

SQL Query for the objects  are defined without Aggregate Aware on them.

Solution: 

Objects needs to be adjusted to have aggregate aware defined on them like @Aggregate_aware(DETAIL_BALANCE…,AC_LEDGER_BALANCE…)

Problem:
Need to find the latest revaluation functional amount as well as the FX gain and losses for each balance at the time of the pairing.

Solution:
Add Balance Revaluation Aggragates objects to the paired Balances to get the latest revaluation functional amounts.

Problem:

The 'WHERE' clause in the object Underwriting year and month is causing duplication of join in the universe.

Solution:

The SQL of the object 'Underwriting year and month' needs to be adjusted (the 'where' clause should be removed), so that it does not cause any join duplication.

Problem:

User is stopped from updating Business Title on an Assumed Business by web service updateBusiness because of the unrelated Security Use Case: 'Business Trace Options' not being assigned to the user role.

Solution:
Security Use Case 'Business Trace Options' should only affect editing Trace Option on the Business tab of  on an Outward Cedent's Contract.

Problem:

When createFGUWorksheet results in two worksheets being created (transfer Yes and transfer No), the server fall over instead of returning both worksheet IDs. The worksheets are generated.

Solution:

Return either both worksheet IDs, or none.

Problem:
Search facility on System Parameters is inconsistent for Accounting / Retrocession / Trace Options

Solution:
Accounting / Retrocession / Trace Options should be possible to be searched based on partial search criteria just like any other tab on System parameters

Problem:
Updating Notes on an agreement's Partners tab by web service does not update this Note, unless something else is also updated.

Solution:
Sending SOAP message (updateInsuredPeriod) to update the Notes on the Partners tab, without including anything else on the Partners or Insured Period tab, these Notes should still be updated accordingly.

Workaround:
Include another element in the SOAP message, e.g. <insuredPeriodFormerId>

Problem:

MG Accounting Order is not working (no longer) when Estimation Frequency value is not matching with Period Set on Booking Terms

Solution:

If Booking terms are defined as Quarterly for the specific Base company and the same are in use for the Multi GAAP accounting Order and Period Estimates are on monthly Frequency, Order should book the figures as per the As at date selection in respect of the Booking Terms even if it is Quarterly.

Problem:
Using web service to create or update Special Termination Clause, the system returns a message saying that Cancellation Condition cannot be edited after expiry date.

Solution:
Sending SOAP message to create or update Special Termination Clause, the system should create/update the condition in the same way it does on-line.

Problem:

Wrong code in BOAC004 that is causing the issue while running the BOAC005 Script by inserting the same records in BOAC_STL_PAIRING.

Solution:

Need to update the BOAC004 Script as per the suggestion to resolve the issue.

During the upgrade of SICS we had some issues on BOAC updates.

The BOAC005 continue to insert all the same record in the BOAC_STL_PAIRING table and the this will increase a lot the DB dimension.

Investigating the issue we found that the error in BOAC004 procedure

The code below

IF @METHOD = 'A' BEGIN     IF @INCLUDE_OPEN_WORKSHEET = 1 BEGIN        DELETE        FROM 'SICSNTPC'.BOAC_DUP_WORKSHEET        WHERE FRK_STATUS <> 'C';     END     UPDATE 'SICSNTPC'.BOAC_STATUS     SET CURRENT_BATCH = COMPLETED_BATCH + 1,      COMPLETED_BATCH = 0     WHERE CURRENT_BATCH = COMPLETED_BATCH; /* CHECK IF THIS IS THE INTIAL LOAD */     SET @V_BATCH_NO = ( SELECT CURRENT_BATCH FROM 'SICSNTPC'.BOAC_STATUS )         IF @V_BATCH_NO = 1 BEGIN          SET @V_IS_INITIAL_LOAD = 1 ;     END ELSE BEGIN          SET @V_IS_INITIAL_LOAD = 0 ;     END /* END CHECK */   

 should be replaced with the following one

    IF @METHOD = 'A'       BEGIN           IF @INCLUDE_OPEN_WORKSHEET = 1             DELETE FROM 'SICSNTPC'.boac_dup_worksheet             WHERE  frk_status <> 'C';       END     UPDATE 'SICSNTPC'.boac_status     SET    current_batch = completed_batch + 1,            completed_batch = 0     WHERE  current_batch = completed_batch;     /* CHECK IF THIS IS THE INTIAL LOAD */     SET @V_BATCH_NO = (SELECT current_batch                        FROM   'SICSNTPC'.boac_status)     IF @V_BATCH_NO = 1       BEGIN           SET @V_IS_INITIAL_LOAD = 1;       END     ELSE       BEGIN           SET @V_IS_INITIAL_LOAD = 0;       END /* END CHECK */ 

With the original code the UPDATE of BOAC_STATUS table will be performed only for method A.

For method B the update will never executed and the field current_batch on boac_status table will always have the value 0. This cause the BOAC005 always to extract all the records (instead only the new ones) and insert all of them (instead only the new ones) into BOAC_STL_PAIRING table.

On client Production database we applied the fix above and now everything works fine.
 

Problem:
Underwriters Estimate Calculation Order Estimate does not work.

Solution:
When we create Underwriters Estimate Calculation Order and save it without any option of calculation and extracted business have some Claim Adjustments, Order should update the new As at date with the updated figures of new claim adjustments if the same variable are in used. As it was working earlier. 

Root Cause:
This issue has been occurred due to the changes via SE-5945 

Problem:
System parameter set up is missing the Search tree in the Underwriter's Estimate and Multi Gaap Sub-calculations

Solution:
Implement Search tree functionality in Multi Gaap Sub-calculations.

Problem:
Search Tree in Underwriter's Estimates and Multi Gaap of system parameters doesn't insert code when clicking on search item.

Solution:
Make sure that system inserts code when double-clicking or selecting menu option 'Insert code.

Workaround:
Remove the search , and then double-clicking or clicking menu option 'Insert code' to insert code.

Problem:
The system is not able to sort the list of Base Companies under User Preference for Extended Base Company Segregation, if the list is containing a combination of small and capital letters. It gives priority to the BC that are beginning with capital letters.

Solution:
On the User Preferences, for the selection of the Current Base Company, irrespective of capital or small letter data, the system should provide the priority to the BC in an alphabetical order and display the available companies in a sorted manner.

Problem:
When moving from field to field by use of the Tab key when creating an Insured Object Cession from an insurable object, the system skips the field Amendment.

Solution:
When assigning an Insurable Object to a contract, and entering information for the Cession by moving from field to field by the tab key, the system should not skip the Amendment field. When the cursor is at the Scope of Cover field, the next field should be the Amendment. This should also be the case also when Scope of Cover has a value.

Workaround:
Move to field by using mouse. 

Aim of function

User should be able to update The Level of Business Indicator/Direction even when Remittance is Final. Allowed by a new system parameter. 

Business value for clients

When incoming remittances are fetched from the GL into SICS automatically, this functionality can be used to determine the Direction, i.e., Inward or Outward, on Remittance Worksheets which are set to Final. The direction may be required by the General Ledger system to record the remittance correctly.    

System Parameters Affected

A new System parameter named 'Update of Level of Business Indicator on Final Remittances Allowed' under Accounting, Remittance -> Remittance Validation page. This is enabled only when the existing parameter 'Indicator for Level Of Business On Remittance Worksheet Required' is selected.

A new System parameter named  'Update of Final Remittances Allowed through Web Services' under Accounting, Remittance -> Remittance Validation page.

Existing functionality affected

The Level of Business Indicator  field in the More Details tab of the Remittance Worksheet will be able to be updated even when the Remittance Worksheet status is Final when the new parameter 'Update of Level of Business Indicator on Final Remittances Allowed' is ON.

When a new Remittance Worksheet is created from scratch, the Level of Business Indicator is mandatory to give. But for the new functionality, when a Remittance with status Final is edited, the Level of Business may be updated, but it is not mandatory to be set if it is blank/none.

For the APIs, a new system parameter 'Update of Final Remittances Allowed through Web Services'  will be created to allow updating the Remittances which are in Final Status. When this parameter is selected then updateRemittanceBalance API will be changed so that the Level of Business Indicator  field can be updated from webserver as well.

Aim of function

A new feature to set the Due Date/Value Date on Paid Remittances equal the Remittance Creation Date + a number of days given in a new system parameter. 

Business value for clients

Higher accuracy on Payment Date for Cash & Cost Ops Team & Bank payment info. 
Less 'urgent' payments created in error by using the incorrect Due Date. 
Automation of Approval/Authorization possible. 

System Parameters Affected

New System parameter 'Prepopulate Due Date/Value Date for Remittance Creation'  under Accounting>>Remittance.

Existing functionality affected

Creation of Paid Remittance. 

Aim of function
A spreadsheet can be used to describe all the required (mandatory and optional) remittance fields in a specific format. Some fields are required, while others are optional; however, in some situations, optional fields must also be provided based on system parameter in SICS. The system creates the relevant remittances in SICS, including the necessary validations, so that the remittance balances are stored in the database as if they were manually made, i.e., using the same validation and the current system parameter settings for remittance balances.
New option is added in the Find Accounting Worksheet window - “Import Remittance Worksheet from Spreadsheet“

Business value for customers
Instead of creating remittance balances one by one in SICS it is more efficient to prepare this in a spreadsheet file and upload several remittance balances in a bulk process.

System Parameters Affected
None

Existing functionality affected
Create Remittances

Aim of function

Improve the usability of the Multi-GAAP calculation editor in system parameters.
We introduced a searchable hierarchy of calculation functions and operators to make it easy to find the value you need faster when editing a calculation.

Business value for customers

Customers can now have a modified user interface with all available items in a searchable tree to insert into calculation rule.

System Parameters Affected

Multi GAAP --> Calculation rule

Existing functionality affected

There is no impact to functionality. This will only improve the usability of calculation editor in Multi GAAP & underwriter estimates system parameter window.

Aim of function

Some companies use SICS Server to record new contracts. Some of these contracts exist in other systems and therefore already have an identifier. To keep the same Business Identifier in all systems, they give the same identifier also when recording these contract by SICS Server.

To avoid that the end user also enters identifiers manually for the contracts they create, it should be possible to set up the system to allow manual Business Identifiers only when the contract is created by Web Service API.

Business values for Customer

Simplifies tracing contracts present in different systems. 

Contracts have identifiers according to company guidelines.  

System Parameters Affected

Manual Business Identifier only allowed when created by Web Service

Assign Manual Business ID with Auto Option

Existing functionality affected

Create new business 
Copy to new business
Place Business
Create business by Web Sevices
Create Business with Sections by Web Service
Copy Business by Web Services
Place Business by Web Services

Aim of function
Allow Claim Programs to cover a list of countries/areas, instead of a single value.
The default value will be the list of locations as defined on selected business. Businesses can be added if they cover the location of the Claim Program (ie the CP location must be equal to or a subset of the locations of the added business.)

Business value for customer
Reduce the number of required Claim Programs, when only the location differs.

System Parameters affected
None

Existing Functionality affected
Claim Program administration
Claim Program APIs

Aim of function
A Claim will now be created using the message’ creation date as Advised date, when a claim is created through eMessaging (process or swap to).

Business value for clients
Ensuring that a correct advised date is captured on claims, and improving further automation.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
eMessage processing
Claim creation from eMessaging

Aim of function
To extend the functionality of mandatory headline loss for MCOB/RU via eMessaging.

Business value for customers

System parameters:

Either one or both of the following parameters are defined:

• From base-company specific settings, claim Headline loss assignment – Mandatory headline loss link for MCOB flag with MCOB.

• Headline Loss link mandatory for reporting units.

along with other parameter 'Link to a Headline Loss is Mandatory When Closing Claim  Worksheet'.

Based on the above parameters selection, the system applies the functionalities of the parameters for all the Claim Movement messages.

System Parameters Affected

• From base-company specific settings, claim Headline loss assignment – Mandatory headline loss link for MCOB flag with MCOB.

• Headline Loss link mandatory for reporting units.

• Link to a Headline Loss is Mandatory When Closing Claim Worksheet.

Existing functionality affected

Claim creation from eMessaging.

eMessage processing.

Claim status.

Aim of function

Support of outbound messages via the already supported integration with ADEPT (ACORD Data Exchange Platform & Translator). The new integration plugin builds upon the sophisticated SICS eMessaging foundation to provide a next-generation market capability to increase the timeliness, accuracy, and security of business data exchange.

Business value for customers

Enabling rapid data exchange, translation, and transformation via ADEPT, the ACORD Data Exchange Platform & Translator.

System Parameters Affected

Configuration of a new eMessaging ADEPT gateway plugin.

Existing functionality affected

eMessaging
 

Aim of function
A new eMessaging rule ModifyTechAccountDueDate to consider the eMessage due date when booking TechAccounts.
When the rule is in force:

• For all the TechAccount messages, the system only considers the due date of the message (i.e., balance amount item due date) irrespective of the Accounting period, Admin Condition, Adjustment Due date…etc.
• If there is no due date on the message, then it work as it works now.

When the rule is not in force:

• Then it work as it works now.

Regardless of this new rule, for the Instalment messages the control of the due date depends upon the existing rule 'ModifyInstalmentDueDate'.

Business value for clients
With the new rule in force, user can able to book all the TechAccounts as per the eMessage due date (i.e., balance amount item due date) Applicable for TA messages.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
eMessage processing

Aim of function
Wrap the setting of due date based on pre-population /calculation within an eMessaging Modifier Rule so it will always set the due date from an eMessage when the rule is active (ostensibly for Service Provider messages).

Note! Service Provider eMessaging bookings rely on Due Date set from messages and thus must not be altered. The new calculated value will not be used in this case, whereas for B2B which relies on linked messages the new functionality to change due date can still be applied.

Business value for clients

• Higher accuracy on Payment Date for Cash & Cost Ops Team & Bank payment info
• Less 'urgent' payments created in error by using the incorrect Due Date
• Automation of Approval/Authorization possible

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
eMessage processing

Aim of function
In SICS there’s the possibility to activate the 'Keep own incurred' functionality on FGU claims. The customer would like an eMessaging rule which does the same, but on claims which are 'non-FGU' (FGU tick not set).
The aim would be when processing an eMessage against such a claim and with this rule activated, eMessaging to keep the overall incurred value, meaning if there are ACRs (Additional Case Reserve) booked to process a change in ACRs based, the eMessage movements to keep the overall incurred stable on the claim.
With this, its ensured that ACRs are updated as we progress on the claim and no dedicated process needs to keep in place to adjust them manually either during processing (swap to worksheet) or after processing (report and manual booking).
This enhancement should not only focus on ACR but also incorporate Client IBNR (Incurred But Not Reported). Or in other words, this should consider, ACR Indemnity and ACR LAE (Loss Adjustment Expense) as well as Client IBNR Indemnity and Client IBNR LAE entry codes.

Business value for clients
eMessage based control on overall incurred on non-FGU claims.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
eMessage processing
 

Aim of function

When upgrading the DB and updating security, the event log will now be updated with evidence of the steps executed.

Business value for customers

Audit evidence during the upgrade process.

System Parameters Affected

None

Existing functionality affected

Update Security

Aim of function

Improve the usability of managing the assignment of business to Master Treaty Groups , Merger Groups, Bifurcation Groups and Business Groups.

Business value for customers

Improved UX and usability.

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

Assign Business to Business Group from Business
View Business Group Members from Business
Create Business Group from Business

Aim of function
We now support Microsoft SQL Server 2022 as a DBMS platform version.

System Parameters Affected
None

Existing functionality affected
None

Aim of function
Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2 reached End of Life status on Oct 10, 2023
DXC no longer supports Windows Server 2012 as a platform for SICS.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-server-2012-r2

System Parameters Affected
None

Existing functionality affected
None

Aim of function
Implement New Security use case for URL links in Help Menu. The use name is 'System Parameter Help Menu Link'. This use case protects editing of URLs in System parameter.

Business value for customers
Protected modifying the Help menu URLs in system parameters.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
User can't edit Help menu URLs from System parameter if above use is not assigned to user.

Aim of function

To implement support for creation of actual job for the Group Orders. Group orders (as mentioned below) will also be supported to Activate Scheduled job from the workstation (from the Group order window itself) for all child orders.

-Account Group Order (Retrocession Account Order Group)

-Calculation Group Order (Retrocession Calculation Order Group)

-Recovery Calculation Group Order

Business value for customers

Once Schedule job is created with request status, The Job, however, will not be run before its activation through Accounting Orders Monitor. With this enhancement, users can Activate Schedule job from the workstation (from the Group order window itself) for all child orders.

System Parameters Affected

None

Existing functionality affected

Accounting Orders (Scheduled Job activation)

Retrocession Calculation Order Group

Create Scheduled Jobs for Orders

Activate Scheduled Jobs

The above are same for other two group orders (Retrocession Account Group Order & Recovery calculation Group Order)

Aim of function

Split the System Parameter page Remittance under Accounting, into two sub pages to give more space for these parameters and to have them grouped in a better way; one to show the settings of the Properties for the Remittances and one for the settings of the Validation of the Remittances.

Business value for customers

Makes it easier to find the wanted system parameter.

System Parameters Affected

Existing functionality affected

N/A

Aim of function
Postgres dropped support for version 11 from 9 November 2023.
DXC will no longer support PostgreSQL 11 from 23.4.
We support PostgreSQL 12+

https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/

System Parameters Affected
None

Existing functionality affected
None