Release documentation - P&C Enhancements and requests

Problem:
Wrong FC Revaulations when do annulling

Solution:
Preconditions:
System Parameter 'BYRP according to Technical Balance' is NOT selected.

When balance pairing takes place and the system creates an FC Revaluation row for the involved technical/claim balance, the system correctly sets the Booking Year and Period from the Default settings for the actual Base Company, either the general Default value or the special overruled Default value defined for Balance Pairing.
When annulling of balance pairing takes place and the system creates an FC Revaluation row for the involved technical/claim balance, the system must find the corresponding revaluation row where the pairing took place and use the Booking Year and Period from that row if this is still an open BYRP. If the found BYRP is NOT within the open BYRPs for the actual Base Company, then the system must use the Booking Year and Period from the Default settings for the actual Base Company, either the general Default value or the special overruled Default value defined for Balance Pairing if existing (same logic as for the balance pairing).

Problem:

Deposits wrong calculations - Clean Cut - Release Next Account with Transfer Next Insured Period

Solution:

When doing Retrocession Calculation, Deposits and Portfolios are calculated based on the setting of release in Next Accounting Year with Transfer to Next Insured Period, and the Insured Period is renewed, system should consider the already booked Deposit Retained, Deposit Released and Portfolio Entry within the same Accounting Period. For example, when Retrocession Calculation Order is created and run by Booking Month of each Accounting Period (Quarterly) and the Deposit and Portfolios are selected in the Order, the Deposit Retained/ Deposit Released/Portfolio Entry of ORPs should be calculated according to the Premium amounts of As Booking of OCC and adjust with the previously already booked As Booking values of OPRs (i.e. the Deposit Retained/ Deposit Released/Portfolio Entry of ORPs should not be repeatedly calculated if create and run Order by Booking Month with Accounting frequency Quarterly).

Problem:
Abend when testing the upload on 24.2 remittances

Solution:
Pre condition - System parameter - Validation of Value/Due Date on Remittance is checked (Under Accounting > Remittance > Remittance Validation)

When the function Import Remittance Worksheet from Spreadsheet is selected and the imported remittance is a pending remittance (all Statuses other than Final), then the system must check if Due Date is present in the file and if not, and if it is not, the syntax error message must be raised saying that 'The Due Date field is required but has not been specified.'

When the function Import Remittance Worksheet from Spreadsheet is selected and the imported remittance has status Final, then the system must check if Value Date is present in the file and if not, and if it is not, the syntax error message must be raised saying that 'The Value Date field is required but has not been specified.'

Problem:
Base Company segregation not considered when uploading the remittance

Solution:
Preconditions:
1. The system parameter 'Extend Base Company Segregation' is selected
2. The actual user has a 'Current Base Company' defined in the Security for this System User

When the actual user creates a new Remittance, either manually or uploaded from a spreadsheet, this remittance can only be assigned to the 'Current Base Company' defined in the Security for this user.

When a remittance is manually created, it shall not be possible to type in or select from Find Business Partner any other Base Companies than the one defined under 'Current Base Company' in the Security for this user. When trying to transfer a BC From the Find Business Partner the system must check if this BC is defined in the 'Current Base Company' for this user and if it is not, then a new validation error must be raised telling the user that the given Base Company is not allowed for this user.

When a remittance is uploaded from a spreadsheet and the user selects 'Validate and process input file' button, the system must check if the given Base Company for this remittance in the spreadsheet is defined in the 'Current Base Company' for this user. If it is, then the remittance pass the test and can be proceeds further. But if it is not, then a the same validation error above must be raised telling the user that the given Base Company is not allowed for this user.

Problem:
Entry code booked IGC IAB are transferred wrong 

Solution:

Prevent copy ECTT to IGC IAB when create IGC, no ECTT to be done from IGC IAB side. 

Problem:

MG Accounting Order Error while we added MCOB on the order. 

An order was ran via the schedule on Friday and created extra bookings on multi-line deals.

Per the cube, the bookings under the pink and yellow that are not on the Casualty MCOB created incorrect bookings that we have had to reverse by running another order as demonstrated on the second tab (not quite complete).{}

Solution :

When we execute Multi GAAP Accounting Order for the business in which Multi MCOB exist and we selected one of them on the Order itself, then Order should only generate the worksheet against the same MCOB not for other one which is not selected on the order. Also it should not reverse the existing worksheet for the other then selected MCOB.

Note: - Solution can be altered, its depend on the technical verification. 

Workaround :

Please do not add any MCOB while we execute the Multi GAAP Accounting Order, Order books the estimates for all sections and will not double it again. 

Problem:

When multiple brokers and one of them has payment task, only first broker in alphabet picked

Solution:

When there are multiple Brokers on a business then the system should first check for the 'Broker with payment task'. If exists then the 'BUS_STRUCT_REP' table should be updated with this broker with the payment task. If there is no broker with a payment task then the existing functionality should be considered and the first broker should be updated according to the alphabetical order of the brokers on the business.

Problem:
Retrocession Calculation Orders books Profit Commission with Incorrect Accounting Year and Period if there are multiple Accounting Years and Periods of the source Premiums or Loss bookings.

Solution:
System should set the Accounting Year and Period of Profit Commission same as the Accounting Year and Period defined in the Retrocession Calculation Order when there are multiple Accounting Years and Periods of the source Premiums or Loss bookings.

Problem:
Documentation not clear for 'Import Technical Worksheet from Column Spreadsheet' mapping

 Solution:
Make the description of the 'Import Technical Worksheet from Column Spreadsheet' within the section Import Worksheet Details in the chapter Find a Worksheet, so that client can easily follow the details mentioned in the User guide and create the mapping to import the worksheet. It should have its own section heading so it’s easier to navigate to, and some clearer documentation of the mapping with screen shots of an example.

Problem:

Deposits not calculated on Retro Calculation Order SR ADO 2059431

Solution:

When running Retrocession Calculation Order, the calculation of Premium/Loss Deposit should depend on the Deposit Conditions defined on the Sub Section of ORP rather than the Main/Sub Section of OCC.

Problem:
When inserting a new index row for a Index Table with a new Base Index Date, the rows are not sorted according to Base Index Date, but just according to sequence of adding the new Base Index Date

Solution:
The list of available Base Index rows under a Index Table type must be sorted according to Base Index Date, independent of the sequence they are added. The most recent Base Index Date must be shown on top of the list, and then in descending order.
It must be checked that when using an Index Table Type which has several Base Index Dates, Recovery Calculation order must use the correct Base Index Date to calculated recoveries. It must be using the most recent Base Index Date in status Open.

Workaround:
Add new Base Index Dates in correct sequence (most current date added last).

Problem:

When Accounting Classifications are automatically generated in the Create or Copy Business processes the system does not check for duplicate of AC Names.                

Solution:

Preconditions: System Parameter 'Automatic Creation Of Accounting Classification' is selected.

When Accounting Classifications are automatically generated in the Create or Copy Business processes, the system must check if any duplicate of AC Names have been created and if that is the case, the system shall NOT create any Accounting Classification automatically. The new business shall be created as before, but a new informational message shall appear telling the user that no new Acounting Classification were added because duplicate of AC Name is found. Similar message as the AC0130.

In the above situations the user must manually create the correct and wanted ACs on the business.

Workaround:

To avoid the above which is also how it should have been defined (workaround) is to select all of these parameters 'Include Method Classification in Accounting Classification name', 'Include Legal Area Code in Accounting Classification name' and 'Include Reporting Unit Code(s) in Accounting Classification name'. By doing that the user will not get into the prolem.

Problem:
Pairing - Over-settlement due to UnSettledAmount getting above the Original Balance Amount

Solution:
Display the validation error message AC0869 - '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 amount higher than its original balance. This is to ensure that neither the Driving Balance nor the Follower Balances get the unsettled amount increased and become higher than its original balance during the pairing.

Problem:

Autolog does not display Error Message for AC0770 Warnings (ISSUE 208)

Solution:

For all Accuracy Validations where AC0770 applies, and when the system auto-logs the errors as per the Threshold value defined on the rules, then system should even log the 'Validation Error Message' for the auto-logged row.

Problem:

Implemented solution from SICSR-24265 in 23.1 version is not working from 23.1 SSP15 

— Multi GAAP Accounting Order sometimes creates corresponding As Original bookings on protecting Outward Cedent's Contract without Functional Currency 2, even if Functional Currency 2 is in use. Occurs when a split function in worksheet closing is applied due to amendment of Protection Assignment on the assumed contract. 

Solution:

we will make sure that previous implemented solution in 23.1 must be working in the all the latest upgraded version of SICS.
Multi GAAP accounting order should always populated Functional Currency 2 on corresponding As Original bookings when in use. 

Problem:
Impact of Partial Installment Settlement on Schedule of Installments

Solution:
Preconditions:
BOTH of the system parameter ' Enable Proportional Split' and 'Suppress creation of partially settled Technical- and  Claim-Balances' are turned ON

If the user is trying to make an instalment balance partially settled with a smaller remittance the system will try to do a proportional split of the instalment balance in a Settled part and in an Unsettled part. This will not work correctly for an instalment booking and the system shall therefore interrupt this process with a new error message. The message should read something like this; 'An instalment balance in this pairing process is not fully settled and cannot be proportionally split in a Settled part and in an Unsettled part. The process must therefore be aborted'.

If the above system parameters are NOT selected then the user can perform the pairing and the instalment balance becomes Partially Settled. This will also be correctly reflected as Partially Settled for the actual instalment in the instalment list on the premium and limit conditions. This is existing functionality.

Problem:
Walkback on Export to Excel / Clipboard Copy or Save

Solution:
When balances are listed in the Business Partner Ledger and the user Left click in the container heading and select the option Open in Spreadsheet, Save as Spreadsheet or Copy to Spreadsheet, the system should be able to execute all these operations in correct way without any strange messages or abends.

Problem:
Automatic booking of accounting details doesn't work if source absolute amount is < 1

Solution:
When Automatic Booking is selected on the Technical Worksheet and the source detail is less than +/- 1.00, the system must calculate the deduction also for this small amount as it does when the amount is equal or higher than 1.00.
This should be the case for all the different Automatic Calculation you can perform on the TW.

Problem:
Not possible to pair Remittance created from SBG when Linked Base Companies option is active

Solution:
Preconditions:
1. System parameter 'Balance Pairing across Base Companies/Legal Reporting Units not Allowed' is selected.
2. The actual Base Companies are linked togeter in the feature Linked Base Companies on the partner's properties.
When a Remittance is created from a Settlement Balance Group and the Remittance is set with a different Base Company than the balances in the SBG, make sure the user can proceed with this function even if there are different Base Companies involved as long as they are all defined in the Linked Base Companies.
This is working fine and should work in the same way as when pairing takes place manually between a Remittance balance and a SBG with different Base Companies involved as long as they are linked together.

Problem:
SICS_Hardstop validation error on loss deposit SICS BID 1165230

Solution:
On the Accuracy Validation error message, the booked amount should be considered the same as the amount booked on the worksheet for the target amounts and should not apply any calculation with respective to how many trigger details have been provided on the worksheet.

Problem:

SICS abend when run retrocession estimate order when check system parameter 'book estimate on IGC'

Solution:

Shouldn't abend and won't create IGC booking even through check related system parameter.

Problem:
Auto reverse instalment not working for booking created through Periodic Function 'Business Partner Mass Update On Balances' with option 'Expected BP Replace'.

Solution:
When bookings are created by the Business Partner Balance Mass Update order with option either 'Expected BP Replace' or 'Responsible BP Replace', make sure that the Inst/Adj No are copied from the source to the target bookings. However, the Instalments on the Instalment conditions should not be duplicated on the Business (IAB) and the Auto reverse Instalment should work to reverse the selected bookings.

Problem:
Automatic Booking of Premium Deposits not working anymore.

Solution:
When selecting the option Automatic Calculation of Deposit on a Technical Worksheet with Premium Deposit conditions defined and booking of an entry code in the EC Group that is basis for the Premium Deposit Calculation, then the system shall create a Premium Deposit Retained detail according to the Premium Deposit Conditions with an amount according to the Percentage on the conditions.

Problem:
Forced System Refresh - Booking Terms Maintenance

Solution:
When the Booking Terms have been modified, and the user doing this replies Yes to message ADM0004, then this must affect only those users assigned to the Base Company(ies) using this Booking Terms. Since one Booking Terms can be assigned to more than one Base Company we must be able to find the collection of users assigned to ANY of these Base Companies in the User Preferences in the field Extended Base Company Segregation.

Example:
User A is assigned to Base Company 1 with Booking Terms BT1
User B is assigned to Base Company 2 with Booking Terms BT2
User C is assigned to Base Company 3 also with Booking Terms BT1

When Booking Terms BT1 is changed and Yes is replied on ADM0004, then only user A and C must refresh to edit in the system.
When Booking Terms BT2 is changed and Yes is replied on ADM0004, then only user B must refresh to edit in the system.

Workaround:
By replying No on message ADM0004 the users are NOT forced to refresh to edit the system.

Problem:

FC Revaluation - Realized gain/loss is incorrect

Functional Currency Revaluation row gets the wrong sign of Current and Previous Amount if Technical balance has same sign as the remittance 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 Technical Balance is the same as the sign of the Remittance amount, 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:
No possible workaround as even if the system parameter 'Prevent Over Settlement of Balance While Pairing' is selected, still the Technical balances within the limit of Remittance amount are getting affected.

Problem:
Retrocession Estimation Calculation Order does not correctly show the updated Business List after saving the Order.
Solution:
After editing the Business List of Retrocession Estimation Calculation Order such as Add/Remove Business, List Business or Clear List, system should immediately update the Business List after click OK button to save the Order.

Problem:

In the New Headline Loss flag enhancement, the flag and the rule are not checking the paid loss or loss reserves on the eMessage, instead it is checking the Business Ledger.

Solution:

When the flag 'Headline loss processing' is selected at the Business, to trigger the 'CheckTAHeadlineLossProcessing' error on eMessage processing, system should check the Loss Reserves or Paid Loss entries', only on the TechAccount message which is being processed. Regardless of

• whether the aggregate of these entry codes values are Zero or Non-Zero on TA message.
• whether Business Ledger of the relevant Business contains Loss / Loss reserve entries or not  

Problem:

If the source booking row has values, then the additionally added bookings through the Quick Entry Option (which are without Accounting Classifications), were not updated by the “Use Selected Value to Populate” options.

Solution:

When any value selected for “Use Selected Value to Populate” option, that selected values should be populated into other rows according to the option selected.

If the source booking row has values, then the additionally added bookings through the Quick Entry Option (which are without Accounting Classifications), should be updated by the “Use Selected Value to Populate” options with the actual selected value. This is not only for the Accounting classification, but for any column which is being selected (Current selection) for “Use Selected Value to Populate” option.

All other functionalities of 'Quick Entry' and “Use Selected Value to Populate” options should remain unaltered.

Workaround:

After adding the new booking rows through quick entry, Unselect Quick entry. Change the Accounting classification of the source booking row to any other classification and again set the required Accounting Classification. Now select the Quick Entry. And select that source booking row's accounting classification. Now the “Use Selected Value to Populate” options will work as expected.

Problem:

When the reinstatement order is not producing any worksheet, the Actual Run information is not updated.

Solution:

The Actual Run information should be populated if order is run, regardless of worksheets being produced or not.

Problem:

Attachments not saved in 'Automatic' Technical worksheet created from Instalment condition

Solution:

The attachments on a Technical Worksheet/Claim Worksheet must be saved and available to view, regardless of :

• The Worksheet Origin : Manual/Automatic/etc.
• The type of Business: prop/non-prop/etc.
• The worksheet status: Open/Closed/etc.
• The level of Business: Inward/Outward.

Problem:

Abend when calculating reinstatement from claim worksheet on an unlimited layer

Solution:

The system should not abend, but also not calculate any reinstatement for the layer with unlimited cover

Problem:

Received External date keeps reverting to the default (today’s 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.

In Technical Worksheet window, if the Received External date changed manually for any Business &/or Currency in the list, that manually entered date should not be defaulted to current date in anyways. 

Further, the above is to be in addition to the solution provided under SICSR-28031

Problem:
Pairing - Over-settlement due to UnSettledAmount getting above the Original Balance Amount

Solution:
Display the validation error message AC0869 - '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 amount higher than its original balance, i.e. compare the absolut Unsettled and Original amount as
abs(LEDGER_BAL_UNS_AMT) > abs(LEDGER_BAL_ORG_AMT) 
This is to ensure that neither the Driving Balance nor the Follower Balances get the absolut unsettled amount increased and become higher than its absolut original balance during the pairing.

Problem:

The net premium on structure tab is not updated after change of the flat premium

Solution:

The Total Net Premium on the Structure tab should be changed upon change of the premium amount on the premium and limits conditions, also when the Premium Type is 'Flat Premium'.

Problem:

When, on a Retrocessionaire Participation, restoring the inheritance of Deduction Conditions from its parent intermediary, the system restores inheritance only on the main section, and not on the sub sections.  

Solution:

When on a Retrocessionaire Participation deleting the Deduction Conditions, the system should not only restore inheritance from the parent intermediary on the main section. It should also restore inheritance on the sub sections of the retrocessionaire. 

Problem:

Declarations and Insured Object Cessions, created as part of an amendment on assumed business, do not match the equivalent declarations/cessions created on the proportional facultative protections. They have different attachment periods, and when removed from the assumed business, they are not removed on the protection.

Solution:

Declarations and Insured Object Cessions, created as part of an amendment on an assumed business, should create exactly the same declarations and cessions on the belonging proportional facultative protections. This includes the same Attachment From and To Period on the declarations and cessions.

When, on an assumed business, removing a Declaration or an Insured Object Cession, which were created as part of an amendment, these should not remain on the belonging proportional facultative protections. These should be removed also here.

Problem:

When replying Yes, to the question 'Do you want the Amendment to apply to inherited conditions only...', the system still applies the amendment to Limits and Premium Conditions of Proportional Facultative Protections, even if the corresponding assumed declaration did not receive the amendment link. 

Solution:

When replying Yes, to the question 'Do you want the Amendment to apply to inherited conditions only...', the system should not apply the amendment to Limits and Premium Conditions of Proportional Facultative Protections, if the assumed section, declaration or insured object cession they are inherited from did not receive the amendment link. 

Problem:
The system abends when trying to remove the Premium and Limit Conditions conditions of a Declaration that was created as part of an amendment.

Solution:
The system should not abend when trying to remove the Premium and Limit Conditions conditions of a Declaration that was created as part of an amendment on a business that has proportional facultative protection and declarations.

Problem:

The message asking the user whether to set Placement Complete flag is not raised on mass renewal of placements of an Outward Cedent’s Contract,, when a new retrocessionaire has been added, even if the Total Signed Share will be 100% on the new period.

Solution:

After having mass renewed placements, then having added a new Retrocessionaire Participation to the new insured period and then mass renewing again, if the Total Signed Share on the new period will be 100%, the message BS0225, asking the user whether to set the placement to complete, should be raised.

Problem:

Sorting on Find Business on column ID is not working as expected

Solution:

When having searched for businesses and the system shows them in the Display list, and then the users ask to sort them by Business Identifier, the system should sort also the identifiers given manually correctly. 

Problem:

When replying Yes, to the question 'Do you want the Amendment to apply to inherited conditions only...', the system still applies the amendment to Limits and Premium Conditions of Proportional Facultative Protections, even if the corresponding assumed sections did not receive the amendment link. This results in an abend. 

Solution:

When replying Yes, to the question 'Do you want the Amendment to apply to inherited conditions only...', the system should not apply the amendment to Limits and Premium Conditions of Proportional Facultative Protections, if the assumed section, declaration or insured object cession they are inherited from did not receive the amendment link. 

Problem:

The user is not able to renew a portfolio program with an amendment because it requires that this amendment has the Complete flag selected. This is not possible because this flag does not exist for portfolio programs.

Solution:
When renewing a portfolio program and it has an amendment, the system should not stop the user with the following message: ‘BS0792. Registration of the latest amendment is not yet complete’. It should just renew as normal. A Portfolio Program cannot have an Amendment Complete flag, so no checks should be done for such flag when renewing portfolio Program.
 

Problem:

The warning message: 'BS0005: Written Share is higher than Offered Share. Do you want to Continue? Yes/No' is given multiple times during the same process, e.g. during creation of a business. This warning is in general redundant as it is not about the important share - the signed share. 

Solution:

Remove the warning regarding Written Share being higher than Offered Share. (No changes should however be done to the message given when Signed Share is higher than Written Share. It should still be given as today.)

Problem:

The system abends, if, on an assumed business, clicking the PT button when this window was already opened in the background.

Solution:

The system should not abend when, from an assumed business, having opened the Select Portfolio Program window (pressed PT button) in edit mode and then once again clicking the PT button. Since the opened window is in an edit mode, it is not allowed to open this window, or another window in edit mode. Therefore, when having opened the Select Portfolio Program window and then once again clicking the PT button, nothing should happen. 

Workaround
Open the Select Portfolio Program window only once.
 

Problem:
Find Claims returns one row per claim reference type when using reference ID as search criteria; and therefore results in more than one row if reference ID is the same for different reference types. 

Solution:
Find claims should return a single row if claim is linked to only one business regardless of the claim reference.

Problem:
Incorrect reallocation towards Client IBNR AAD when Claim sequence Date of settlement and expenses are part of liability

Solution:
The system should reallocate correctly towards Client IBNR AAD 

Problem: 

The system behaviour is incorrect and inconsistent when adding businesses to a Claim program with multiple locations. 

Solution:

The system should maintain the Claim Program location as defined in Create Claim Program wizard.

When searching for additional businesses, the system should always default the CP locations.  These may be removed or additional locations added to enable search.

The business selected must be validated against the existing locations defined. It should not alter the CP location. Only businesses with same or greater location may be added.

On completed CP the location should be reflected on classification, and on Business Links.

Extent of Impact:

Incorrect Claim Programs

Problem:

Abend when retrieving Headline Loss Claim list or Non-Prop Recovery list, and the OCC is either 100% unplaced, or has no placements.

Solution:

Figures allocated towards an OCC which is either 100% unplaced or has no placements must be considered as 100% unplaced, and should included in the Protected 100%, excluded from Protected Placed, and included in HL Gross Net

Problem:

'IS_IN_BOOK_CURR' on table 'AC_LEDGER_BALANCE' is set to 'N' for FGU worksheet created through Import function 

Solution:

The flag should be set to Y for FGU worksheets created through import; in the same manner as when worksheet is created manually or from FGU.

Problem:

Quotation figures does not support ACR, ACR  LAE, Client IBNR, and Client IBNR LAE amounts - despite being able to update these through API, nor can these figures be retrieved

Solution:

Add these columns to the Quotation layout, and ensure that amounts ar included in the overall incurred.

Also add support in domain retrieval

Problem:
System abends when creating an interlocking claim without DOL

Solution:
The system should validate CM0199 (Loss Starting Date is required but has not been specified) when creating an interlocking without specifying the date of loss.

Problem:
Layout for the Annuity field on Claim in incorrect in the edit mode.

Solution:
Layout should be corrected so that the Annuity is displayed in the edit mode.

Problem:
Add new scope of cover element in SicsWsPcClaimEntryPoint while performing AssignToNextPeriodSOC or AssignToPreviousPeriodSOC operations on interlocking claim

Solution:
Assign Interlocking claim to the next period using a web API should work as expected.

Problem:

The system abends  when creating Claim Share with updateClaim API

Solution:

The system should create the Claim Share

Problem:
The Domain retrieval for claim doesn't provide the information related to the Claim Status/Sub status.

Solution:
Domain Retrieval for the Claim should include the following information under <scopeOfCoverRelation>
1. Claim Status <claimStatus> (subclassNumber=0517)
2. Claim Sub Status <claimSubStatus>(subclassNumber=0518)
              

Problem: 
Claim to Section UDF Field Can not be update via Webservices

Solution:

UDF Field on the Claim Section should be update via Webservices

Problem:

The SICS eMessaging sample client was unable to send XML messages via HTTPS to the SICS eMessaging server. Even after uncommenting <security-constraint> in the web.xml file, the issue persisted.

Solution:
Adding the HTTPS transport receiver configurations on port 8443 in the axis2.xml file resolves the issue. This change allows the server to properly handle HTTPS connections, and XML messages can be successfully sent. so, this need to be updated in SICS EMessaging server documentation.

Problem:
In Reinstatement B2B message, As of date is 22/07/2024 (Here Creation date is taken as As of date) and message due date in <BalanceAmtItem> is 19/07/2024. As per the intended system functionality, Due date should be equal to or greater than As of date. Hence in this case, due date is less than As of date, thats why the system throws error.

 {{ <BalanceAmtItem Type='technical_account_settlement_balance_due_by_sender'> <Amt Ccy='USD' CcyIndic='reference_currency' Share='receiver_share'>459.66</Amt>
<DueDate>2024-07-19</DueDate>
</BalanceAmtItem>}}

Can this “validation”  be switched off or if we can influence that in any way shape or form? when such a instance is detected the expectation would be that the Due date is set equal to the As-of-Date / Transaction-Date anything else does not make any sense.

Solution:
As the Due Date should not be set to less than As Of Date, if the Due Date is prior it should be set to As of Date.

Problem:
<ClaimAmountsIndicator>claim_no_amounts</ClaimAmountsIndicator>

CM message goes to Informational. We have not assigned this message function to these message types
The details of the previous message are indeed the same
Zero amounts
Same As of Date

Solution:
It is intended functionality that a matching booking will result in the current message being set to informational regardless in order to reduce the number of identical bookings, however such a message should still attempt to close a claim if indicated.

Problem:
TestForMultipleOutstandingLossesWithCommonOrLaterDateValidationRule is triggering a problem based on the current message (open) worksheet and not simply any previous (message) bookings.

Solution:
If the current message has already an open worksheet then this should not be considered itself when testing for prior related bookings.

Problem:
When messages are received with only one detail amount in a group, book the missing detail amount in a worksheet.

Missing detail amount= Total amount item- detail amount.

When the Total amount item is zero (and the one given item is also zero) then the 'missing' item is not booked (as the given item equals the total). The missing item is not booked (as zero).

Solution:
When the Total amount item is zero and there is a missing item then the missing item must still be booked as zero.

Workaround:
Manually reduce the reserve to 0 for the missing item.

Root Cause:
Enhancement to booking missing group item for invalid messages not considering zero total.

Extent of Impact:
Reserve / Informational bookings by current position.
Invalid ACORD messages where one of a group total item pair is not included although the other is and the total is .included with zero amount.

Problem:
Reinstatement TA ClaimReferenceRule abends because the referenceSection()' is null

Solution:
For a TA with reference to specific section, if there is a previous message linked to the same insured period then the presumed section may be taken from the previous message to aid referencing a claim.

Workaround:
Go to System Parameter > eMessaging >Rule Details.

Open Rule set name >eMessaging Document Type: ACORD TechAccount - eMessaging Message Flow: Reinstatement. (Open in edit mode).

Select the identifier SectionReferenceRule from Assigned Rules and move the rule up by Move Rule Up button and place the rule before the ClaimReferenceRule and save the changes.

Problem:
Remittance created with Payment Type eMessaging does not have Bank Account validation applied and creates Remittance having missing bank account(s) without problem raised.

Solution:
Payment Type eMessaging should be considered as a Wire type and applicable validations should be applied.

Root Cause:
eMessaging Payment Type

Problem:
If a balance being split is already part of an Account Group then do not try to create a new AGB but update the existing one with the new reverse and split balances.

Solution:
If a balance being split is already part of an Account Group then do not try to create a new AGB but update the existing one with the new reverse and split balances.

Problem:
When the tick box 'process only unprocessed messages' the system processes all the messages.
Agency / Contract Nature show blank entry rather than None when None is selected.

Solution:
Agency / Contract Nature should show None in view mode when no actual specific ACORD Code is selected.
When Unprocessed Only is selected and the Message Status is None then all message status are included when Unprocessed only is expected.

Workaround:
To Validate / Process Unprocessed only then explicitly select the Unprocessed status in Message Status field.

Root Cause:
Defaults not set / applied correctly.

Problem:
When testing the change request SE-23867 with multi-layer treaties we first set-up the claims program and linked it to all the layers involved and then uploaded the initial advices for the relevant layers we were testing. When processing claims classically, if we link a new claim to a claims program linked to multiple layers the new claim is automatically linked to all of these layers. We expected this to be reflected with this change as follows:

Expected behaviour:

1st layer finds the corresponding claims program. The new claim is created and is linked to the claims program and therefore to all layers in the program
2nd layer finds the corresponding claims program. The system recognises that this claims program is linked to the 2nd layer and that a claim already exists and links to the existing claim
However, the system seems not to recognise the linking of the claims program.

Solution:
The new claim is created and is linked to the claims program and therefore to all layers in the program.

Problem:
NP premium adjustments: a large number of digits included after the decimal point in the informational figure in the emessage showing the referenced Adjustment.

Solution:
Ensure that the amount displayed for the adjustment is rounded to 2 decimal places as per the business adjustment view.

Problem:
Message discarded with Rejection does not retain links to contract unlike a message discarded with acceptance.

Solution:
Irrespective of a message discarded with Rejection or Acceptance the contract links should be retained.

Problem:

View Balance Pairing Properties Image not displayed in Business Partner ledger chapter in SICS P&C User Guide

Solution:

Upload Image of View Balance Pairing under Business partner Ledger in chapter 11.17 in SICS P&C User Guide (SICS Docs)

Workaround:

NA

Problem:

PC Main universe does not allow reporting on multiple brokers.

Solution:

Need to make adjustment in the structure near PTY_Broker. Attaching the changes here.

SICSR-29570-Development.xlsx

Problem:

Missing attachment objects for worksheet, claim and headline loss in PC Main Universe.

Solution:

For headline loss(attachments):

• View: In the view V_CLAIMS_HEADLINE_LOSS, add a column for attachments as per the code given below. (Fetched from Oracle server)
  SELECT 
      SUBSTR(INV.path_and_filename, 1, INSTR(INV.path_and_filename, '', -1, 1)) AS file_path,
      SUBSTR(INV.path_and_filename, INSTR(INV.path_and_filename, '', -1, 1) + 1) AS file_name, 
      inv.description AS TITLE
  FROM 
      SICS4PC.CLAIMS CL
  JOIN 
      SICS4PC.DOC_INVENTORY INV
      ON cl.object_id = INV.attachedtooid
  WHERE 
      cl.claim_identifier = 'HL9009'; 
• Once we have inserted the column for it in the view, we can add an object for headline loss - attachments under Claims Information>Headline loss to make it reportable.

For CLAIM- ATTACHMENTS

We need to follow the same steps as headline loss.

Select DOC_INVENTORY. * from DOC_INVENTORY JOIN SOC_TO_CLAIM_REL ON SOC_TO_CLAIM_REL.object_id=attachedtooid JOIN CLAIMS ON CLAIMS.object_ID=SOC_TO_CLAIM_REL.FK_CLAIM where claim_identifier ='0000002296'

NOTE: INV needs to be another alias something like DOC_INVENTORY INV_HL so that it will separate out form the DOC_INVENTORY INV which is going for the claim
***

Problem:

A Few objects are missing in the partner Universe.

Solution:

Need to create all the missing objects in the partner universe. For few objects we need to create alias tables and create objects.
1)  Need to create folders Bank Visit Address and Bank Any Address under Bank details,Bank same as in Person.
2)  Need to create Business Unit under Address–>Bank
Object definition: BUSINESS UNIT-ADDRESS.BUS_UNIT_NAME
3)  need to create Bank Former Name & Bank Former Short Name under Bank
Bank Former Name-SJ_Bank_FON.NAME
Bank Former Short Name-SJ_Bank_FON.SHORT_NAME
4)  Also need to create Attachment folder under Bank same as in Business partners.
5)   In Business partners need to create Included in Billing statements, Business Partner Former Name, Business Partner Former Short Name, Business Partner Alternative Short Name IS  INCLUDED FROM BILLING STATEMENT-PARTY.IS_INCL_FROM_BILLS
6)  Business Partner Former Name-SJ_BP_FON.NAME , Business Partner Former Short Name-SJ_BP_FON.SHORT_NAME , Business Partner Alternative Short Name-SJ_BP_AON.SHORT_NAME
7)  Need to create folders Claim Detailed Check & Tax on interest under Business Partner
8)  Need to create Bank Account Type, Bank Account Task, Currency Conversion Account , Intermediary Account under Bank Account–>Business Partner Bank Account Task-PARTY.ACCOUNT_TASK, BANK ACCOUNT TYPE-BANK ACCOUNT.BNK_ACC_TYP,Currency Conversion Account-BANK_ACCOUNT.IS_BCCA, Intermediary Account-BANK_ACCOUNT.IS_IMD
9)  Retention Date under Third Party
10) Objects for Person Middle Name, Age, Contact Person For under Person  Person Middle Name-PTY_Person_Derived.PERSONNAME_MN
 
11) Partner Address Identifier under Address–>Person , Partner Address Identifier-ADDRESS.ADDRESS_IDENTIFIER
 
12) Also need to create objects IS Active/Is Main Address/ Is Visit Address/Is Postal under Person. Business Partners & Bank.

Problem:

The client needs to fix bookings that were reversed. They are looking for the universe object 'Status' shown below when they open the history on the installments.

Solution:

For creating this object, we need to remove the SPEC_STAT is null condition from V_SJ_BC_INSTAL0_DER VIEW

*We need to create an alias table for BC_INSTAL and make a join for V_SJ_BC_INSTAL0_der.

*Create a Derived Table for BC_INSTAL_2

*Add a new object Status in Installment 

Problem:

LOV's in the partner universe are wrong and should be corrected.

Solution:

Need to change the LOV'S SQL for the below mentioned objects.

• Rating 

SELECT DISTINCT
  Rating.NAME
FROM REFERENCE_DATA  Rating
RIGHT OUTER JOIN BP_RATING ON
BP_RATING.FRK_RATING=Rating.CODE AND 
BP_RATING.FSK_RATING=Rating.SUBCLASS
ORDER BY
1

• Rating System

SELECT DISTINCT
  REF_RatingSystem.NAME
FROM
  REFERENCE_DATA  REF_RatingSystem
RIGHT OUTER JOIN BP_RATING ON
BP_RATING.FRK_RATING_SYSTEM=REF_RatingSystem.CODE AND 
BP_RATING.FSK_RATING_SYSTEM=REF_RatingSystem.SUBCLASS
ORDER BY
1

Problem:

Join issue for V_NOT_RENEWED and V_REPORTING_TABLE in IDT level.

Solution:

Need to adjust the V_NOT_RENEWED view  for all the databases.

Note:

For the Oracle side, we created a new view, V_NOT_RENEWED_3, which is working for this join and getting the data correctly.

Problem:

Report for Minimum and Deposit Premium on placements shows everything as not booked, but on OCC is showing correct numbers.

Solution:

• As per user request, we need to inherit installation values from OCC to ORP. For that, the view V_INSTALLMENTS_OCC_ORP needs to be added as per the script attached below.
• The universe structure should be altered as shown below in the screenshots by replacing the highlighted tables with the new view.
  
• The objects under the following folder should now be moved to the newly created view.

Problem:

Underwriter estimates objects performance problem.

Solution:

Alter the view V_UW_EST & V_UW_EST_LATEST as per the script-  CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW V_UW_EST and _EST_LATEST.sql so that now the base and target conversion for estimate is included in this view itself. ( Which were earlier coming from the view V_INSTALLMENTBALANCES_DATES -  the probable reason for slow report performance at TRIGLAV).

Problem:

The client has notified us that the field 'Max Loss Ratio' in Business Objects (BO) returns wrong results.

Solution:

Need to adjust the object definition for Max loss ratio.

CASE WHEN (LEAD(SSS_ELEMENT.STEP_VALUE) OVER (PARTITION BY V_REPORTING_TABLE.FK_SOC,SSS_ELEMENT.FK_SSS ORDER BY SSS_ELEMENT.STEP_VALUE ) -0.000001) IS NULL THEN 10000 ELSE LEAD(SSS_ELEMENT.STEP_VALUE) OVER (PARTITION BY V_REPORTING_TABLE.FK_SOC,SSS_ELEMENT.FK_SSS ORDER BY SSS_ELEMENT.STEP_VALUE ) -0.000001 END

Problem:

Settled Payable Amount (Original), Settled Receivable Amount (Original) Objects are not working properly, they are coming back with NULL instead of an amount.

Solution:

Need to correct view V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL2.

(Need to correct the columns queries V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL2.PREM_AMT2, V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL2.CLAIM_AMT2)

Problem:

The derived table is crashing when trying to parse it against the Oracle database.

Solution:

Need to modify the expression for the derived table.

SELECT
BUSINESS.IDENTIFIER AS BUS_ID,
AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.OBJECT_ID AS ACLB_OBJECT_ID,
AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.IDENTIFIER AS ACLB_IDENTIFIER,
CASE WHEN EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.EXT_PAYMENT IS NULL THEN EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.PAYMENT_DATE
ELSE EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.EXT_PAYMENT END AS EXTENDED_OR_DUE_DATE,
AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.DUE_DATE AS DUE_DATE,
EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.EXT_PAYMENT AS EXT_PAYMENT,
EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.INST_NR AS INST_NR
FROM
AC_LEDGER_BALANCE
JOIN BUSINESS ON BUSINESS.OBJECT_ID = AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.FK_BUSINESS
JOIN AC_LEDGER_DETAIL ON AC_LEDGER_DETAIL.FK_BALANCE=AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.OBJECT_ID
JOIN BC_INSTAL EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE ON EXTENDED_PAYMENT_DATE.OBJECT_ID = AC_LEDGER_DETAIL.FK_SRCE_INSTALMENT

Problem:

We need to have 'None' as an option in accounting periods for report data as we have in SICS end.

Solution:

Alter the view V_AC_LEDGER_BALANCE as per the view script attached here so that we can have the join in the updated view.

LEFT OUTER JOIN BOAC_ACCT_PERIODS ON BOAC_ACCT_PERIODS.FROM_FRK_PERIOD = BOAC_DIM_TIME.FRK_AC_REF_PERIOD AND BOAC_ACCT_PERIODS.MAP_FRK_PERIOD_SET='AQ' 

We already have the above-mentioned join added for the view V_BOAC_PC_FACT in the latest view script, so no need to modify it.

CREATE OR ALTER VIEW V_AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.sql

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

Need to add base company relevant to each user in Reference universe, so that client can get the data properly as per their requirement.

Solution:

• Add the table USER_BASE_COMPANY_REL and create an alias of Party table in reference data universe structure.
• Give joins between USER_BASE_COMPANY_REL and CNU_USER as:
  CNU_USER.OBJECT_ID = USER_BASE_COMPANY_REL.FK_USER
• Give joins between USER_BASE_COMPANY_REL and alias of party table as:
  USER_BASE_COMPANY_REL.FK_BASE_COMPANY = USER_PARTY.OBJECT_ID
• Add these two joins in contexts for ENTRY_CODE and CNU_EVENTLOG and refresh the structure.
• Add two objects for base company as user base company name and user base company id under the folder Security for reference universe.

Object definition for Base Company name: USER_PARTY.CURR_NAME
Object definition for Base Company ID: USER_PARTY.IDENTIFIER

NOTE: when adding the new base company name and ID to the security structure can you use development objects so that we can retrofit this development into ACIM reference universe allowing them to easily upgrade at a later point in time

Problem:

Parameter PINCREMENTAL_LOAD is still missing on one place see screenshot below.

Solution:

Need to add the description about incremental load for the BOAC004 procedure in the oracle database.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

When deleting all contexts in SICS 24.4 Partner Universe and doing it again then automatic detection PTY_BusPartner context is not detected.

Solution:

Change the join from 1:n to n:1 for table V_PERSON_DETAIL and CONTACT_PERSON_RELATIONSHIP and between CONTACT_PERSON_PARTY and CONTACT_PERSON_RELATIONSHIP  and in last give 1:1 for join V_DATE_LOV and DIMDATE

Problem:

Four new indexes on the table BOAC_WK2_PAIRING are missing.

Solution:

New indexes need to be created for the table BOAC_WK2_PAIRING (BO_PAIR_WK2_BAL3, BO_PAIR_WK2_BAL4, BO_PAIR_WK2_BAL5, BO_PAIR_STL_BAL2)

Problem:

In view V_DTL_LIQUID_UNSETTLED used GREATEST function is not supported till SQL Server versions prior to SQL Server 2022.

Solution:

Need to modify the view script V_DTL_LIQUID_UNSETTLED with a new script that twill work for all SQL server versions.

Problem:

Users are not getting correct unsettled amounts for few worksheets.

Solution:

At PC universe level modified the derived table V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING.

Added one field NEXT_PAIRING_TS1 in the order by Clause of that BP_RANK_SEQ field then it is fetching latest records and report is showing correct values for all worksheets.{}

Problem:

In PC main universe the object query needs to be changed to get the correct data in report.

Solution:

The view V_BOAC_PC_FACT needs to be updated. In PC main universe the objects query Accounting Quarter, Accounting Quarter (Code), Accounting Year and Quarter needs to be changed.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

In SICS 24.4 when using revaluation objects in reports that numbers are completely wrong on details level.

Solution:

The new tables BO_DM_ACTIVITY_LOG_REVALUATION, BOAC_FC_REVAL_BAL_BYRP, BOAC_FC_REVAL_DTL_BYRP and procedure BOAC004_REVALUATION needs to be created and also the views V_FC_REVAL_DTL_BYRP & V_FC_REVAL_BAL_BYRP needs to be altered.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem: Few objects are missing in the Partner Universe and few objects need to be corrected.

Solution: Objects need to be added to the Bank, Business Partner, and Person folders. Additionally, the definitions and joins of some objects need to be corrected after checking, to ensure the correct data is retrieved.

Problem:

V_AC_DETAIL_LIGHT_TIME is not performing up to the mark.

Solution:

We need to replace V_BOAC_BOOK_PERIODS with BOAC_BOOK_PERIODS table inside V_AC_DETAIL_LIGHT_TIME view script.

Problem:

 Quarter values are not available while doing exchange rate calculation in balance amounts.

Solution:

• Need to add BOOKING_YQ_LOCAL, BOOKING_YQ_LEGAL, BOOKING_YQ_GLOBAL columns in V_AC_LEDGER_BALANCE view.
• Change definition of objects under Support/Exchange Rates/Balances, Bank, After Pairing & ORP folder from 'V_BALANCE_DATES' to V_AC_LEDGER_BALANCE.
• Add option to user for Quater selection in these objects.
• Create alias for V_AC_LEDGER_BALANCE and joins that instead of V_BALANCE_DATES.

Problem:

The view V_BALANCES_DATES  it does not include remittance balance types. This is because of it is joining to AC_WORKSHEET table instead of AC_LEDGER_BALANCE table.

Solution:

The view V_BALANCES_DATES script needs to be updated to work on all databases.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem: Join expression related to V_REGISTRATION_COMPLETE to Reporting Table is not as expected.

Solution: Need to change the join expression related to V_REGISTRATION_COMPLETE it should come from V_REPORTING_TABLE instead of REPORTING_TABLE.

Problem:

BOAC script BO001 & views V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL1 & V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL2 problem.

Solution:

Need to alter the BO001 script as per the script given below, and add the part:

/* BOOK AND ACCT PERIOD TABLES */

TRUNCATE TABLE BOAC_BOOK_PERIODS;

TRUNCATE TABLE BOAC_ACCT_PERIODS;

/* PAIRING TABLES */

TRUNCATE TABLE BOAC_STL_BP_BASE

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE BO001.sql

Also, alter the view scripts of V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL1 & V_BOAC_STL_PAIRING_BAL2 as per the below attached scripts to resolve the performance issue :

RE_ 24.4 BOAC and View problem.zip

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

Most of the indexes are missing from the table create part for both the table creation method A and B.

Solution:

Need to create the missing indexes on the BO tables.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

Outer join is placed on the wrong side for 24.4 PC Main Universe: RU_LEAFSoc.OBJECT_ID=REP_UNITSoc.FK_LEAF 

Solution:

Need to adjust the outer join to the correct side as shown in the below image.

Problem:

Outer Join issue for PTY_BaseCom.OBJECT_ID=BUS_PRTNR_BASE.FK_BUS_PARTNER .

Solution:

Need to adjust the outer join in the correct table side (BUS_PRTNR_BASE)

Problem:

Missing joins for V_UW_EST_LATEST

Solution:

Need to adjust the missing joins V_UW_EST_LATEST and structure in the PC Main universe.

For V_UW_EST the joins are available .

Problem:

Individual Claim - Estimate Comment field is not reportable yet.

Solution:

Add the object Estimate Comment under the folder Claim Information>Properties>Claim Estimate by using the existing development object 501 so that it can be ported back to the client universe.

Object definition:

V_SJ_IND_CL_LOS_EST.EST_COMMENT

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

Objects showing default values of ‘Quarter(s)’ and ‘Q’, even if the account frequency condition is not defined in SICS.

Solution:

Need to remove the coalesce in the object definition for 'Account Frequency Type' and 'Account Frequency Type (Code)'.

Problem:

Underwriter estimates objects performance problem.

Solution:

1 .Need to modify the view script as per the script attached below (for both Oracle and SQL) -CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW V_REPORTING_TABLE.sql

2. The objects that are now coming from the view V_INSTALLMENTBALANCES_DATES need to be coming from V_REPORTING_TABLE at the universe level.

Problem:

User is getting multiple reference Ids against one broker and for one insured period.

Solution:

Remove Join between PTY_broker and SJ_BUS_PRTNR10_1. And give join between V_REPORTING_TABLE and SJ_BUS_PRTNR10_1 will give the correct results.

SJ_BUS_PRTNR10_1.FK_INS_PERIOD=V_REPORTING_TABLE.FK_INS_PERIOD AND SJ_BUS_PRTNR10_1.SUBCLASS=10 AND SJ_BUS_PRTNR10_1.FK_BUS_PARTNER=V_REPORTING_TABLE.FK_BROKER

Problem:

Multi GAAP Accounting/Retro Order wrongly populate Accounting Period while respective option is selected on the order.

Solution:

We make sure, when Offset period has been defined from any of the palaces (System Parameter OR Booking Term) and 'Populate Accounting Period' option selected on the Order. Both Orders Multi GAAP Accounting and Multi GAAP Retrcoession should populate correct Accounting Year/Period for generated Accural worksheets as per their Accounting Period FROM TO range, as It Populates for Estimates Bookings. 

Problem:

Underwriters Estimate is not working as per defined offset period from System Parameter.

Solution:

Since the system operates from the Specific Base Company-Booking Term functionality, it should apply the Offset Period functionality for the Underwriters Estimates when we define the Offset period under a system parameter and the corresponding booking term does not have a defined 'offset period.'

Problem:

When using chained operations to renew a business (copy conditions is true) with multiple conditions defined and Stepped Sliding Scale Commission is one of the defined conditions, and then later in the chained operation updating the steps in the Stepped Sliding Scale, the steps are not updated correctly.

Solution:

When sending a Chained Operations message that includes renewBusiness with the element to copy business conditions to the new insured period is set to 'true' and then later in the same message including updateDeductionConditions/Stepped Sliding Scale, the system should update the Stepped Sliding Scale Steps as follows:

Element <deleteAll>is 'true'
-delete existing steps (steps copied from previous insured period)
-create new steps as per input in <specificationForAddingSteps>

Problem:   
At some places specified properties being generated as data member and some of them with suffix '1' ,

Solution: 
This will be fixed during the generation of the client, 

Problem:

When updating business using Web service, 'updateBusiness' operation, it is possible to select both Flat Base and Cash Based as Premium Basis.

Solution:
When setting the Premium Basis by Web Service, it should not be possible to select multiple values. Only one out of the following should be possible:  Proportional Based Premium, Flat Based Premium or Cash Based Premium. When having sent a service with this invalid choice, the system should stop the user with a message in the SICS server feedback.

Problem:
API - No error returned when API attempts to change the direction on a remittance that is settled

Solution:
Pre conditions -
the following system parameters are all selected
Update of Level of Business Indicator on Final Remittances Allowed
Update of Final Remittances Allowed through Web Services

Give an error message response when running the SICS API 'updateRemittance' and trying to update the Level of Business Direction on a remittance that is Settled. Even with the above two parameters selected it is NOT allowed to update the Level of Business Indicator if the Remittance is Settled.

Message text: The Balance for the given Remittance Id is Settled and the Level of Business Direction cannot be changed.

Workaround:
Manually check that you don't update the Level of Business Direction on a Settled Remittance

Problem:

Special Termination Clause Rating details are not included in domain retrieval

Solution:
When by web Service trying to retrieve the value of the following fields in the Cancelation Conditions / Special Termination Clause, the system should show their recorded values:
-Rating Agency
-Rate at
-Business at Stake
 

Problem:

It is not possible to assign a non-proportional facultative outward cedent's Contract protection to an Assumed Business by web service. 

Solution:

The web service addOutwardCedentContract should include an element also for adding a non-proportional facultative Outward Cedent's Contracts to mimic on-line functionality.

Problem:
Should more than one record in system parameters be linked to same Base Company?

Solution:
Preconditions:
The actual Base Company is defined with a special Exchange Rate Category in the Base Company Specific Settings.

When the system performes a balance pairing between two balances of different currencies for the above Base Company, the system shall always use the Exchange Rate Category defined for this Base Company in the Base Company Specific Settings

Problem:

Sorting is not consistent in all fields under booking terms maintenance

Solution:

In Booking Term Maintenance, the 'Default' Year/period reference items, for the period set of Months, should be in a shorted form as in the same way (Ascending order) as of Year/Period 'From' and 'To' range for the Period set 'Month'. This should be followed even for the newly added reference items (months). 

The above is also applicable for Reference Items - Currency and Exchange Rates - Currency window - Period Rates - Period (Months).

Problem:

Error while executing Data Consistency Script for PG14 database.

Solution:

The respective XML files and SQL need to be corrected.

Problem:
Exchange Rate types not sorted alphabetically

Solution:
When opening the Currency and Exchange Rates facility and drop down the Type field within the 3 tabs Day Rates, Period Rates and Year Rates, make sure the values from reference table 202 are sorted in alphabetic order.

This must be the situation all places where the values from reference table 202 can be found, e.g. on the Criteria window for the Online Statistics.

Problem:

Abend when pressing period estimate Calculate button on retrocessionaire participation

Solution:

The system received Abend when the Period Estimation item on ORP included the rule that drives from the Underwriter Esimation item. When the 'Calculation on Retrocession' option is selected on the corresponding 'Period Estimate' item, we will ensure that SICS computes figures as zero. If the option is not selected, the Respective Period Estimation Item should retrieve the value from linked OCC according to their share ration and not provide Abend. 

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

The Access Code drop down remains enabled in the User Preferences.

Solution:

The Access Code drop down box should be disabled under the User Preferences main window in view mode. It should be active for selection only in Edit mode.

Problem: Contexts are not detected: DOC_INVETORY, CALCULATIONS, CNU_EVENTLOG.

Solution: The contexts that are detected after recreation are required rest can be ignored.

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem: While testing, found some strange values with two objects see screenshots below:
1)

2)

Solution:

1) Change the script for objects Access Right Type to: 

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.CR when 'Y' then 'C' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.RD when 'Y' then 'R' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.UP when 'Y' then 'U' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.DL when 'Y' then 'D' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.EX when 'Y' then 'E' ELSE '-' END 

and Access Right Type Name to: 

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.CR when 'Y' then 'Create' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.RD when 'Y' then 'Read' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.UP when 'Y' then 'Update' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.DL when 'Y' then 'Delete' ELSE '-' END ' , '

CASE V_ACCESS_RIGHTS.EX when 'Y' then 'Execute' ELSE '-' END 

Als Change the script for V_ACCESS_RIGHTS to:

CREATE OR ALTER VIEW V_ACCESS_RIGHTS AS

select 

src.* ,

src2.FK_USECASE

from

(

 SELECT 

  OBJECT_ID,USER_ROLE,ACCESS_NAME,

  MAX(CASE WHEN ACCESS_TYPE = 'C' THEN CREATE_ACCESS ELSE '-' END) AS CR,

  MAX(CASE WHEN ACCESS_TYPE = 'R' THEN CREATE_ACCESS ELSE '-' END) AS RD,

  MAX(CASE WHEN ACCESS_TYPE = 'U' THEN CREATE_ACCESS ELSE '-' END) AS UP,

  MAX(CASE WHEN ACCESS_TYPE = 'D' THEN CREATE_ACCESS ELSE '-' END) AS DL,

  MAX(CASE WHEN ACCESS_TYPE = 'E' THEN CREATE_ACCESS ELSE '-' END) AS EX

 FROM (

       SELECT

                                 USER_CATEGORY.OBJECT_ID ,

         USER_CATEGORY.NAME AS USER_ROLE,

         CREATE_ACCESS.IDENTIFIER AS ACCESS_NAME,

         CREATE_ACCESS.ACCESS_TYPE,

         CASE 

           WHEN CREATE_ACCESS.ACCESS_TYPE IN ('C', 'R', 'U', 'D', 'E') THEN 'Y'

           ELSE '-'

         END AS CREATE_ACCESS

       FROM

         USER_CATEGORY

          JOIN USRCATEGRY_USECASE CREATE_USER_CASE ON USER_CATEGORY.OBJECT_ID = CREATE_USER_CASE.FK_USERCATEGORY

          JOIN USECASE CREATE_ACCESS ON CREATE_USER_CASE.FK_USECASE = CREATE_ACCESS.OBJECT_ID

                               GROUP BY

                                 USER_CATEGORY.OBJECT_ID ,

         USER_CATEGORY.NAME,

         CREATE_ACCESS.IDENTIFIER,

         CREATE_ACCESS.ACCESS_TYPE

      )  src

 GROUP BY 

  OBJECT_ID,

  USER_ROLE,

  ACCESS_NAME

) src

join 

(

 SELECT

  FK_USERCATEGORY, 

  USECASE.OBJECT_ID as FK_USECASE,

  USECASE.

  IDENTIFIER

 FROM

  USER_CATEGORY 

    LEFT JOIN USRCATEGRY_USECASE ON USER_CATEGORY.OBJECT_ID = USRCATEGRY_USECASE.FK_USERCATEGORY

    LEFT JOIN USECASE ON USRCATEGRY_USECASE.FK_USECASE = USECASE.OBJECT_ID

 WHERE

  FK_USERCATEGORY is not null

)src2 on src.OBJECT_ID = src2.FK_USERCATEGORY and src.ACCESS_NAME = src2.IDENTIFIER

;

GO

2) Change the outer join to Right Outer Join:

Declination Reason:

Workaround:

Root Cause:

Extent of Impact:

Impact on Existing Data

Recovery Method for Existing Data Affected

Problem:

When creating insurable objects, if an Insurable Object Type and Name match exactly with an existing Insurable Object, the system displays a Confirmation message. This message does not show the Insurable Object Identifier or name of the existing one, so one has to guess and try to remove one and then maybe try again.

Solution:

When creating an Insurable Object with similar Insurable Object Type and Name as an already existing object, the system should, as today, give a warning message, but it should be more informative.  It should show the Insurable Object that might have a duplicate by stating its Type and Name. The message should read, for example: ‘‘An insurable object with the same type and name exists already for the following:
Building: Audi Martorell
Do you want to Continue? Yes / No

CVE's resolved in this release by updated 3rd party libraries

Component

CVE ID

Summary

Severity

Dependency

Aim of Function
When an Accounting Order is executed via scheduler and this order does not create any worksheets, it shall be completed without any failure and the system shall continue with the next scheduled order in a job sequence. 

Business value to customers
When an Accounting Order that does not create any worksheets when it runs in scheduler,  it will be marked as “No Result”, then all orders in sequence will continue and be executed as expected. 

System Parameters Affected

None

Existing functionality affected

Run scheduled jobs

This requirement involves the following types of account order:
Financial Premium Reserve Order
Multi GAAP Account Order
Multi GAAP Retrocession Order
Original Premium Reserve Order
Unearned Premium Reserve Order

Aim of function

Implement the new balance split option ‘Split by Claim’ in the ‘Balance Split Options’ group for ‘Retrocession Calculation Order,’ ‘Retrocession Calculation Group Order,’ ‘Retrocession Account Order,’ and ‘Retrocession Account Group Order'. When this option is selected, claim-related balances, such as claims paid and reserves, will be split according to the claims.

Business value for customers

This will simplify and save time when settling with reinsurers if they pay by claim. Additionally, it will resolve the issue of booking date changes affecting client reporting if the balance is manually split later.

System Parameters Affected

Accounting->Retrocession->Trace Option -> ‘Trace Claim from Outward Bookings’

Existing functionality affected

• Retrocession Calculation Order
• Retrocession Calculation Group Order
• Retrocession Account Order
• Retrocession Account Group Order

Aim of Function

To enhance SICS so that it should be possible to link claims from the Technical Worksheet in Assumed Business, similar to how bookings are linked to claims in Outward Business from the Technical Worksheet. 

Business value for customers

This enhancement to link a Claim from the Technical Worksheet will facilitate internal reporting, ensuring that all bookings related to a specific claim can be accurately extracted from the system. 

System Parameters Affected

A new System Parameter 'Allow to link Claim from TW on Assumed Business' under Accounting, Worksheet.

Existing functionality affected

The 'Link Claim' functionality from TW on Assumed Business.

Aim of function:
To differentiate between the various Worksheet Validation Error Types i.e., 'Error' and 'Warning', we are introducing a new column to the Accuracy Validation Log called 'Error Type Indicator' which will be saved in table ACC_VAL_RULE_LOG.

​

Business value for customers:
In Reporting the error Analysis will be more accurate using this new Indicator instead of other logic to distinguish Hard Stops from Warnings. It will also be possible to see the Error Type of old bookings when Worksheet Validation Thresholds might have been different. And the fPod Users can create and close Worksheet within fPod without opening/switching to SICS and not required to fill in unnecessary Accuracy Validation information when the Log was due to the Warning and can have 'No touch Processing'.

System Parameters Affected
N/A

Existing functionality affected
Accuracy Validation Log Window

Aim of function

Reinsurance contracts may include a premium discount which the cedent will receive for making no claim. Web services for registering No Claim Bonus terms and conditions should include the same details as when recording these on-line. In addition, when retrieving information by web service, the system should retrieve all these details. These web services now therefore include also the Premium Basis and Loss Basis of the No Claim Bonus.

Business value for customers
Possible to record complete terms and conditions for No Claim Bonus by web service.
Possible to retrieve all registered details of No Claim Bonus by web service.
 
System Parameters Affected
None
 

Existing functionality affected
Maintain Rebate Conditions
Create Rebate Conditions by Web Service
Update Rebate Conditions by Web Service
Retrieve Rebate Conditions by Web Service 

Aim of function

If needing to change the responsible person for several businesses in one go, it is possible to run the Mass Update Responsible Person. To be able to make a precise selection of the contracts to be updated, it is now possible to limit the search for them further by having more filters. The new filters are Class of Business, Underwriting Year, Business Identifier and Base Company.  

Business value for customers

Saves time.
Simplifies the search. 
Increases accuracy. 

System Parameters Affected

Database and Systems / Extend Base Company Segregation

Existing functionality affected

Assign Responsible Person
Mass Update Responsible Person
Limit Business Management by Base Company Segregation
Manage Security

Aim of function:
Use the web service functionality to create a Reinstatement premium order

Business value for customers
It is possible to create a Reinstatement Premium Order without opening the workstation. This allows for more efficient automation of the integration processes.

System Parameters Affected
 N/A

Existing functionality affected
Reinstatement Premium for Inward

Aim of function
To introduce a new eMessaging rule “SanctionsWatchListValidationRule” to set an error on eMessages when the flag Sanctions Watch List is activated on Insured Period.

Business value for customers

• Users can know if the sanctions watch list flag is activated on business.
• It stops processing eMessages when the flag sanctions watch list is On.

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

eMessages processing.

Aim of function

To set the flag ‘Is Swap to Worksheet Allowed’ to false/unselect on the rule “BaseCompanyValidationRule”, if the rule setting 'Is Override Allowed' is set to false. 

Business value for customers

Users now have the restriction to 'Swap to Worksheet’, when 'Is Override Allowed' is set to false on the “BaseCompanyValidationRule”.

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

eMessage Processing.

Swap to Worksheet.

Aim of function

To automatically pair the Claim movement eMessaging reversal and original balances. 

Business value for customers

Can be able to automatically pair the reversal and original balances for CM and TA claim messages. 

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

eMessage Processing.

Aim of function

To Increase the BP Reference field size to support 255 characters.

Business value for customers

Can be able to provide upto 255 Characters into BP Reference field.

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

eMessage Processing.

Aim of function

To improve the performance of the UPR order and bring down the processing time. 

Business value for customers

The current implementation requires a lot of time for the system to aggregate details based on various criteria, but this has been optimized in the new code implementation. Additionally, many 'for' iterations were modified to remove the item from the collection upon completion of processing it, instead of waiting for the entire collection's processing to complete, in order to manage memory more effectively.

The user can process UPR orders with less processing time, even with huge amounts of accumulated data. 

System Parameters Affected

N/A

Existing functionality affected

Unearned Premium Reserve (UPR) order: performance improvement.

Aim of function:
Enable the Public Data Model technology Preview for customers to investigate.
This is enabled via a new module key tick box which defaults to off.
Once enabled this adds an additional tab to the Table Management window for setting up the PDM views, tables, and stored procedures.
The initial focus is on the partner and business parts of the database.

The PDM database schema is subject to change as DXC continues to work on refining the structure.

Business value for customers:

Customers can get an early view into the progress made with the PDM, and provide feedback in input to DXC on its direction and capabilities.

System Parameters Affected
New Module Key to enable the PDM preview

Aim of function
Improve the icons in use in the Assure Re desktop app and make it configurable to enable them in the SICS desktop app as a preview feature.

Business value for customers
Improved visual appearance and the preview and provide feedback on the new icons.

System Parameters Affected
User Preferences

Existing functionality affected
n/a