Get documents about "MarkeTrak Enhancements_Requirements_ERCOTcomments_051007
Document Sample
Enhancements
Issue (Business
Category Source Issue problem trying to solve)
TDSPs currently getting
one MT issue with all
ESIs. TDSPs unable to
process in timely
manner TDSPs would
like the option of
getting Quarterly
Annual Validation Issues on a Will need to fleshed out
Quarterly 1MarkeTrak Issue per during call to review AV
Business Validation MMWG ESI ID Basis issues
MPs want to be able to
see MarkeTrak Numbers
Prior year from prior year to
subtype Market would like to see compare with current
Reporting reports MMWG #s for prior year year.
Average Market would like to see Market needs to be able
Completion average time to complete to monitor its progress on
Reporting Time MMWG MT issues working MT issues.
MPs would like to be able
to email directly from the
MT screen using a button
to any and all associated
parties with the MT issue
and/or Primary &
Secondary Escalation
contacts. MPs would like
to be able to override
auto-populated email
MPs would like info those address.Any emails sent
that have been would be logged on the
escalated, timeframe and screen.MPs would like to
the reason, even though see information on issues
comments have been that have been escalated
added or issues closed such as when, and for
Escalation they are still being what reason, they were
Business Process MMWG escalated. escalated.
Even though comments
Even though comments have been added to a
have been added, or MarkeTrak issue, or
Escalation issues closed, they are issues is closed, they are
Business Process MMWG still being escalated. still being escalated.
TDSPs need to be able TDSPs need to be able
Business Priority Flag MMWG to identify priority issues to identify priority issues
TDSPs need more detail
New Need more detail on on the vote state of
Business Statuses MMWG TDSP process w/IAS Inadvertent Gain Issues.
TDSPs are receiving
incorrect issue types
Billing Issue because of confusion
vs. Missing with issue definitions.
Transaction Some CRs not using Need to restrict tran types
Business s MMWG types correctly on usage billing issues.
Some MPs need to pull
statistics on more than
3000 issues. The limit of
3000 rows is restricting
reporting capabilities and
Volume MPs can only pull 3000 the work around is
Reporting Limit MMWG rows at a time awkward.
Technical Need better means to MPs are not able to
Distribution communicate w/ tech communicate specifically
Other List MMWG users with technical users.
MPs would like to see a
count of each issue type
MPs would like a screen rather than just a list of
similar to old FT issues. Be able to drill
GUI Dashboard MMWG homepage down into issues.
Currently, when the Currently, when the
Gaining MP submits an Gaining MP submits an
Inadvertent Switch Inadvertent Switch
MarkeTrak issue MarkeTrak issue
requesting the Losing MP requesting the Losing MP
to regain, the Gaining MP to regain, the Gaining MP
must wait for the Losing must wait for the Losing
MP to click the "Begin MP to click the "Begin
IAS Work" button before Work" button before
Transition the Gaining MP can click the Gaining MP can click
Business Issue ERCOT "Agree". "Agree".
Currently, we are unable
to merge cells after
downloading reports into
Excel format. We Currently, we are unable
understand that this will to merge cells after
require reconfiguration by downloading reports into
Reporting Cell Merge the software vendor. Excel format.
We have been unable to We have been unable to
determine escalation MP determine escalation MP
contact‟s for Inadvertent contact‟s for Inadvertent
Switches utilizing Switches utilizing
GUI Look Contact MarkeTraks directory MarkeTraks directory
and Feel Page format. format.
Currently, when you click Currently, when you click
the “Search‟ button, the the “Search‟ button, the
cursor is positioned in the cursor is positioned in the
GUI Look Cursor “Keyword(s)” field by “Keyword(s)” field by
and Feel Placement default. default.
Currently, the Marketrak Currently, the Marketrak
tool is DUNS specific tool is DUNS specific
thus making it difficult to thus making it difficult to
detect new issues as the detect new issues as the
user must sign on under user must sign on under
each certificate to query. each certificate to query.
The FasTrak tool The FasTrak tool
accommodated all accommodated all
ESID‟s no matter the type ESID‟s no matter the type
Associate i.e. SESCO, AE SMB i.e. SESCO, AE SMB
Other DUNS TXUES Non-Res, AE Res, etc. Non-Res, AE Res, etc.
Asks for start date and
end date. Only looks at
30 days -- a month with Needs months to be
31 days ends up at 2 identified so that you can
reports. Also puts get data for entire month.
inappropriate column Also want to be able to
headings that result in pull data for a year or for
Trend users having to one date. Needs totaling
Reporting Reports TXUED cosmetically correct. functionality.
Would like to be able to
set up "reminders" to
notify users when an Bring unresolved issues
Personal issue is about to go to to MPs attention prior to
Notifcations DE Escalation escalation
Premise Allow MPs to work issues
Type TXUES Add field for premise type by business unit
setup a MT distribution
list - These distribution
lists would allow a 3 way
communication between From lessons learned,
ERCOT to MPs, MPs to allow a way to have a 3
CNP ERCOT, and MPs to MPs way communication
A need for an end to end
process for the issue.
From the API, we pull the
information into our
database - updates are
made as changes are
made to the issue. If
ERCOT removes us from
the issue, we are not
aware. It remains as an
active issue on our end
because nothing has
Provide update via API been sent on the API to
whenever a Market inform us that we have
Participant's visability to been removed. It has
an issue has been definitely impacted our
CNP removed. reporting.
Bulk Insert, If a file is
entered twice, 1) does it In the instance a file is
validate so it can not loaded multiple times,
upload the same file need a way to withdraw
name 2) bulk insert to the issues so that there
CNP withdraw are not duplicates.
Bulk Insert does not
validate so it can not
upload the same file
CNP name
MarkeTrak should have
the ability to Query List
back to GO Live 11-13-
06 in order to sync up
CNP systems.
DEV Issue Sub-Type
'IDR usage present MP
not ERCOT', add a
'TOTAL' field to GUI. This
field would be required.
CNP Also map this to the API.
Consistent sub-type
verbiage requested
across Bulk Insert & GUI
CNP grids.
Bulk Insert Stoptime logic
is adding one day to the
date once a user inputs
desired stoptime. Create
issue with actual stoptime
(date) that's requested by
CNP submitter.
On the GUI, when
creating high date
stoptime (i.e.
12/31/2037), if the user
adds a timestamp in the
text box (23:59:59), the
issue creates but can not
be withdrawn [if user
needs to]. To enhance,
validate on the date field
so that if a timestamp is
not needed, inform the
user and do not create
CNP issue.
Remove 14-day wait from
'Auto Complete' to 'Auto
Complete (Closed)'.
Recommend transitioning
straight from 'Pending
Complete' to 'Auto
Complete (Closed)' after
14 days {as oppsed to 28
days from 'Pending
Complete' to 'Auto
CNP Complete (Closed)'}.
DEV LSE Issues: Once
TDSP modifies date(s),
ALL parties involved in
issue should be able to
CNP view the Modified date.
DEFECT - Reporting:
When exporting details to
excel EXCEEDING the
1st set of 3,000 rows and
upon clicking the 'Excel'
Button in report view,
only the 1st set of 3,000
rows is actually exported
to Excel. Using that
'Excel' button, logic
should export the
appropriate set of rows
user is requesting (i.e.
CNP Last 200 rows).
DEFECT - Escalation
notice functionality for
DEV Issues appears not
CNP to work.
Reports - Search Filter
should allow the user to
utilize key word 'OR'
instead of only 'AND'
CNP when querying the tool.
For TDSP submitted DEV
LSE Issues, allow user to
proactively enter
information in the field
'Service Hist With Duns
for Affected Period' [if
user sees fit
at the time of
submission]. This field
would be optional. Map to
CNP GUI, Bulk Insert and API.
More efficient to have the
Add the MarkeTrak website available like
Website as a permanent TML. Many not aware of
Link. Should be in next the website. Location of
CNP release. User's manual
Notes were being used
instead of the comments
field. The notes was not
Remove the "notes" mapped in the wsdl and
option from the action xsd for the API to pull in.
drop down (may just In working through an
need to have inquiry automated process
since there are notes that comments were not
CNP exists.) available.
Text fields,
ERCOT does not support ex.Rec'vd monthly
the & sign in the API ( usage files- also issue
CNP may be other characters) with pecent sign
ERCOT should create a
report to monitor issues
that are created but not Prevent issues sitting in
CNP submitted pending.
When adding a new user,
they should have access
to all issues from day
one, not from the time
they are set up in
CNP MarkeTrak
Currently there is not a
subtype for service order
transactions and they are
Possibly add a Service being filed under
CNP Order Sub Type to D2D OTHER.
In the Workflow for
Missing transaction -
many time the issue is
opened to the MP,
instead of ERCOT,
should this default to May need to clarify when
CNP ERCOT to assign to whom.
Most transitions
comments are added.
Currently it is a two step
process. ( if set up to
allow comments - what is
Ability to send comments the impact to the Quick
CNP on all transitions Transitions)
A few fields not present
in the WSDL (dev) a
comment field - not issue
CNP comment
Database - MarkeTrak
CNP needs a Process History
Was left out of the drop
Add the 65004 to the down on the intitial roll
CNP drop down menu out
For reporting - the
Auto complete - should autocomplete issues
CNP reflect "closed" appear to still be open
Contacts - is there a way
CNP to have a default,
Service period Start date
added but is optional for
missing transaction,
projects, seibel chg/info,
CNP and other subtypes
Only required field is esiid
- not enough to
determine rep of record.
Usually in the comments,
the CR will specify a
Service period Start date particular time period.
added and is required for Sometimes it is several
CNP Rep of Record months back.
Need comments to have
Make comments required enough information to
for Siebel chg/info sub research and reply to the
CNP types issue
This was a request from
the March 6th meeting on
Add ISA field and have it 2006, there was not
required for 997 issues enough information
and optional for projects provided to answer the
CNP and "other" sub types issue
Need to have a process
for ERCOT to check to
see if rolodex and
contacts are populated, MPs to work with their
and a way to go thru an ERCOT Rep to find good
CNP update process contact
IAS - many issues are in
a state of "agreement
reached", they are not
closing, nor auto closing -
some the BDMVI has
been sent others the
BDMVI has not been
sent. Is there a way to
verify and close if
transaction sent. Is there
a way to transition to
another state ( possibly a
new state) if the
transactions has not
CNP been sent
yes, currently CR's not
seeing these to
transition. Also for those
who are having issues
with the reporting - would
IAS escalation notices - be notified in an email
not working quite right. they have an issue to
CNP Are they including "new" work
Copy/Paste from
CNP MarkeTrak to excel, etc.
IAS - no agreement
reached - in this state
since Jan, however
comments are still being
CNP added mt44457
more efficient reporting -
currently would copy -
paste to excel - then
Reports - year to date format, add cols to get
CNP option totals
Streamline reporting -
Merge capability for create several reports -
reports - subtype, copy and paste to make
CNP subtype by state one report
Improved processing time
for API query
CNP detail/update/response
when you email from for tracking and audit
MarkeTrak - need a way purposes - what has
to include the email as been done to resolve
CNP part of the issue issue.
Option available for D2D,
but not DEV, would have
have a report type for all to run report for each
CNP DEV subtype
Reporting issue. - Some
do not allow a change on are overrideing the title
CNP the title with comments
Amongst each DEV issue
sub-type, make
population of the „Title‟
field static. Validation
could be done to ensure
that a submitting MP can
NOT populate this field
with information that‟s not
relevant to that particular
sub-type. (i.e. DEV IDR
issue 101120: Title field
is
„IDRUsagepresentinboths
ystemsbuthasdateissues‟
but it‟s a „In ERCOT
system not MP‟ sub-
CNP type).
The other MP issues an
IAS/Gain issue then
realizes they have a
pending MVO and must
Currently the losing MP submit a Cancel with
depends on the gaining Approval. Once the
MP to place a comment Cancel With Approval is
on the IAS issue submitted and linked to
regarding their intentions the IAS Marke Trak , the
to cancel the pending Losing MP is unable to
Business TXUES MVO. see the link.
TML to MarkeTrak Link
prompts for Digital Cert
Deffered twice
Inadvertent Switch Issues
– The Siebel call is not
populating all of the
Deffered necessary data
Bulk Insert Performance
– The requirement states
that each issue submitted
via Bulk Insert must be
submitted in three
Deffered seconds or less
API permissions for
Deffered Query only
ERCOT Proposal
Market Proposal Discussion Comments
ERCOT needs more
clarification on the
request:
- Is the request for 1 to 1
relationship? Or
- Is the request for
information on number of
ESI IDs to be included in
AV issues?
- Conference call
ERCOT could add field determined that this
on the issue to reflect the issue is only related to
# of ESIs included. Some Quarterly Validation
TDSPs would like a one - Some TDSPs want 1
to one for each AV issues per ESI ID
update while ERCOT and instead of a list
other concerned about - Requirement will be to
too many files being sent provide option of
Report # of ESIs within at one time and the having a MT issued
each MT issue not just # potential impacts to the seperatly for each ESI
of MTs issues system ID
ERCOT believes this is
Group feels that all available through current
requirements will be reporting functionality.
Report # of issues by captured - no need for Need more details if MPs
subtype for the prior year add'l development do not agree.
ERCOT needs more
details on calculation
parameters:
- Average time in each
state?
- Average time from
Group feels that all beginning to end?
requirements will be - How would auto close
Need to clarify if by all captured - no need for be handled in the
MPs or market average add'l development calculation?
maybe implement a way
to assign issues to the
primary escalation
contact - but would have
to all be users. Or a way
to get contact info from ERCOT needs more
issue page. Maybe add a details on what escalation
button to escalate issue contact is being
via email to primary & requested:
secondary contacts from ERCOT to bring process - What player's escalation
the issue itself. to next MMWG meeting contact is needed?
ERCOT presented
Escalation Process at
03/23/07 MMWG Meeting
- ERCOT has requested
specific examples but
have received none to
date.
- ERCOT does not
belive this is something
TXUED to provide ERCOT to bring process that needs a system
ERCOT examples to next MMWG meeting change
041707 notes: MPs will
consider doing two API
pulls -- pulling only
041707: Add SMRD as cancels first. 032307
field and add priority notes:Maybe add a field
flag based on the for a date to be worked
SMRD. TDSPs to by. Maybe include critical ERCOT needs more
consider multiplie queries date field for all issue details on priority flag:
-- pulling priorites/cancels types. ERCOT would - what issues need
first.that can be sorted by assign certain as priority priority flags?
and reported on - what is rather than allow CRs to - what should constitute
included? assign priority?
add a button for the tdsp
to say that they agree
and also a button that
says EDI received and Redesign workflow rather
3rd button that all work is than just adding new
Add 3 new statuses: done. Cr would not be states or buttons
Received by TDSP & able to close the issue - Pending a proposal
Completed by TDSP until TDSP agrees from Inadvertent Gain
041707 notes: Add drop
down menus to Missing
Transaction -- only
include 814s. Add drop
down menu to
Usage/Billing -- only 867s
& 810s. All missing 867s
& 810s would be filed
under Usage/Billing
issues. Also include drop
down Menu or check box
to indicate whether IDR Need definition from MPs
or NIDR. Better define on what tran types need
how each subtype is to to be included for Billing
be used, potentially limit usage and missing
subtypes in drop down transaction.
May look at EIS for
solution. This would
result in replicated DB to ERCOT can support ad-
041707 notes: Will need run reports on without hoc reporting requests
to include this in the SCR impacting users. from MPs when the
in order to cost estimate. Otherwise, increasing the need for >3000 is
Would like to increase to row # will result in needed (on a monthly
5K -10K performance decrease cycle)
Maybe have two list - one
Create new distribution API and one GUI.
list: could either be sign- ERCOT working on ERCOT implemented self-
up or new contact type getting setup subscribing mailing lists.
Current Home Page can
be customized by users
to include reports.
ERCOT believes current
functionality provides the
same information
available on FT so needs
more details for this
041707 notes: MPs request:
would like to see more - What information was
ERCOT needs more detail on the dashboard. provided on FT that is not
definition on what MPs This can be done via available via MT
want query for homepage. Reporting?
041707 notes: MPs to
hold subteam to develop
new workflows. When
the Gaining MP issues
the MarkeTrak requesting
the Losing MP to regain,
once issue is created
they should have the
ability to click the "Begin
Work" and "Agree" Redesign workflow rather
buttons. This would than just adding new
expedite 95% of the states or buttons
Add a button -- see notes pending issues we know - Pending a proposal
above have in backlog from Inadvertent Gain
Users are able to merge
cells if saved to your
computer first. When you
select the Excel version
you are given a choice of
"open" or "save", you
should select save.
When you open from the
041707 notes: This is download you are using a
not an MT issue. MPs limited version of Excel
If MPs save to desktop, need to save to desktop and this is why all
and open in Excel, this and open in Excel. functionality is not
would solve the issue Enable cell merge option. available.
041707 notes: Adding
button to send email
straight from MT page ERCOT believes this is
should resolve this issue - not a change to current
- see notes on Escalation functionality and is a
Search on contact page Process enhancements. training issue.
does not work with space Create a MP contact - ERCOT can verify this if
- you must include either page that mirrors the provided with a specific
% or * FasTrak contact page example.
Place the cursor in the
Will request vendor to “Issue ID” field or allow
place in first field upper the user personal settings ERCOT has asked for a
left-hand side capability. vendor enhancement.
Tie all associated DUNS ERCOT security
together to create a more requirements prohibit
efficient associating multiple
Potential security issue. reporting/querying DUNS numbers to a
Tied to DCs. process. single digital certificate.
CNP will bring samples
reports for what they
want to be able to create.
This can be done
currently through
reports on the Home
Page - ERCOT needs a
definition from the
Market as to what kind
of "Reminder" is being
requested.
ERCOT needs input on
Add a new required field what issue types need
for Premise Type to have Premise Type
done
ERCOT needs input
"ERCOT Intervention" or from the Market on
issue deleted, would an what they would need
email help? to see.
SIR 11233 - next release
ERCOT belives this is a
training issue - There
are instructions in the
Tips and Tricks for
need to brainstorm, new granting access for a
request type? new user to all issues.
Redline of the user's
guide
SIR 11208 - next release
Need a review of the filed
for High Date - Review
need discussion timestamp logic
need discussion -
ERCOT needs more
information on this
issue
need discussion -
ERCOT needs more
information on this
issue
discussed a resolution in
3/28 Retail Market Call
need discussion
This is a training issue.
Possible proprietary
information involved in
this request
SIR 11036 - next release
done
for journal or text fields
User can create a report
escalation? "State=Pending Issues"
UG contains process to
grant access to new
users to old issues,
vendor contacted
ERCOT is assuming
this is 650 as definition
of Service Order Type -
future release is adding
fields? 650 to the drop down
eliminates Quick
transitions - Need more
discussion from the
Market
need more detail -
ERCOT needs more
detail on this issue
ERCOT needs more
detail on this request.
What business problem
is this trying to resolve.
SIR 10957 - next release
SIR 11205 - next release
defaul owner?
are you requesting it be
mandatory? - ERCOT
needs more detail on
this request.
ERCOT needs more
detail on this request.
ERCOT needs more
detail on this request.
ERCOT needs more
detail on this request.
MPs should contact
their Retail Account
Manager who can try to
work with other MP to
encourage them to
need discussion update their contacts.
Define at IAG Workshop
can be done now?
ERCOT will research
see above request #7
ERCOT will pull report
on request
ERCOT needs definition
from the Market on
what improvement they
are looking for - what is
acceptable processing
time.
Vendor Enhancements
submitted:
5157756/ENH109708 -
escalation emails
5157753/ENH109709 -
notification emails
5163147/?????????? -
Issue emails
Parent Project Type
Needs further
discussion
There are proprietary
information issues
surrounding the
allowance of all MPs so
see links they are not
associated with,
however other options
can be explored to
solve the business
Enable all MP's to see issues. ERCOT
links no matter who recomends that this be
submitted it. As long as included in the
that MP is involved in the Inadvertent Switch
IAS. workflow discussions.
ERCOT needs
information on whether
this is still occuring
SIR # 10909 and #10689
for future release.
ERCOT needs
information on whether
this is still occuring
ERCOT needs
information on whether
this is still occuring
In or Out Scope? SCR Reference
Issue 2
In Scope Resoultion 1.g.
Current Functionality N/A
Issue 3
In Scope Resolution 1.c.
Issue 1
In Scope Resolution 1.a
Out of Scope N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.h.
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.a
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.b
Current
Functionality N/A
Out of Scope N/A
Current
Functionality N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.a
Current
Functionality N/A
Current
Functionality N/A
Out of Scope N/A
Out of Scope N/A
Issue 3
In Scope Resolution 1.a
Current
Functionality N/A
Issue 2
Resolution 1.f
(with specification
In Scope of IAS)
Current
Functionality N/A
Issue 1
In Scope Resolution 1.b
Pending Release N/A
Issue 1
In Scope Resoultion 1.d.
Current
Functionality N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.c
Current
Functionality N/A
Pending Release N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.g.
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.d
Pending Release N/A
N/A N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.e
Current
Functionality N/A
Current
Functionality N/A
Pending Release N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.b
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Current
Functionality N/A
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.a.
Current
Functionality N/A
N/A N/A
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
N/A N/A
Current
Functionality N/A
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
N/A N/A
Current
Functionality N/A
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.a
Issue 2
In Scope Resolution 1.a.
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Furture
Release N/A
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Pending Further Pending Further
Discussion Discussion
Workflow Issues
Issue (Business problem trying to
Source Issue solve)
TDSPs need more detail on the
Need more detail on TDSP process vote state of Inadvertent Gain
MMWG w/IAS Issues.
Currently, when the Gaining MP Currently, when the Gaining MP
submits an Inadvertent Switch submits an Inadvertent Switch
MarkeTrak issue requesting the MarkeTrak issue requesting the
Losing MP to regain, the Gaining MP Losing MP to regain, the Gaining
must wait for the Losing MP to click MP must wait for the Losing MP to
the "Begin Work" button before click the "Begin Work" button before
ERCOT the Gaining MP can click "Agree". the Gaining MP can click "Agree".
Processing flow: beyond capablility to
process therefore is hangs in an
infinite retry. Transaction model, fails
while processing > throw out > do not
CNP place back in que
Revise the IAS workflow - needs to
flow through the different CR's to
vote, then transition to the TDSP. If see proposed workflow - add a
one of the CR's disagrees, then the return button that would reset the
CNP issue goes to ERCOT "vote" of both CR's
Unclear how to transition an issue to
ERCOT. Looking for transition button
'return to ERCOT', VS using the
CNP 'assign owner' button Address with workflow group
Market Proposal Discussion
add a button for the tdsp to say
that they agree and also a button
that says EDI received and 3rd
button that all work is done. Cr
Add 3 new statuses: Received would not be able to close the
by TDSP & Completed by TDSP issue until TDSP agrees
041707 notes: MPs to hold
subteam to develop new
workflows. When the Gaining MP
issues the MarkeTrak requesting
the Losing MP to regain, once
issue is created they should have
the ability to click the "Begin
Work" and "Agree" buttons. This
would expedite 95% of the
pending issues we know have in
Add a button -- see notes above backlog
Duplicate Issue
Workflow
In or Out SCR
ERCOT Proposal Comments Scope? Reference
Redesign workflow rather than
just adding new states or
buttons Issue 2
- Pending a proposal from Resolution
Inadvertent Gain In Scope 1.a.
Redesign workflow rather than
just adding new states or
buttons Issue 2
- Pending a proposal from Resolution
Inadvertent Gain In Scope 1.a.
Pending Pending
ERCOT needs further Further Further
information on this issue Discussion Discussion
Issue 2
Pending a proposal from Resolution
Inadvertent Gain In Scope 1.a.
This is a training issue Out of Scope N/A
Related docs
