Question
When inconsistencies exist between the ITS templates and the DPM 4.2 Annotated Table Layouts, which source should be considered authoritative for reporting purposes?
Background on the question
We have identified inconsistencies between the ITS templates published in the "Annex for IT solutions instructions disclaimer" and the "Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1/2" available in the DPM 4.2, and would appreciate clarification on the correct approach to follow. These inconsistencies have been identified in RESOL 1 and are expected to affect RESOL 2 as well. Specific examples of discrepancies include: • Country/Currency codes: The ITS templates require ISO codes (e.g., ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for countries), while the DPM specifies full names. • Boolean values: The ITS templates specify YES/NO, while the DPM requires TRUE/FALSE. • Formatting requirements: The DPM validations contain additional spacing and naming conventions that differ from the ITS specifications.
Answer
This question has been rejected because EBA guidance or clarification is not needed. This can be the case where harmonisation of practices through the Q&A process is not considered necessary; or that the issue is not material, for example because it is considered to be relevant only to a limited set of institutions or other stakeholders.