FUJ00097062
FUJ00097062
Thomas Pennyf_
Wenkins Gareth
Ce: D'Alvarez AlanI
From: Butts Geoff{/O:
Sent: Thur 24/06/2010 6:25:40 PM (UTC)
Subject: I RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BUTTSG]
Guy/Penny,
Please do not make any communication on this issue with POL for the moment. We've been looking at this today and are waiting
to determine if a proposed workaround is adequate. I'll come back to you either tomorrow or Monday on progress.
Regards,
Geoff
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:25
To: Thomas Penny; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Yes please, just until we get a chance to speak to the HNG-X team tomorrow.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:24
To: Wilkerson Guy; Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Guy
Should I hold off advising my counterpart of this issue?
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
Fuji es Limited, Registered in England no 9 Registered Office 22, Baker Street, Lond 1U 3BW
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that
this E-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:12
To: Jenkins Gareth GI; Thomas Penny
Cc: D'Alvarez Alan; Butts Geoff
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
Gareth/Penny,
I think we need Alan D'Alvarez or Geoff Butts to look at this — I'd hate to have POL raise this as an issue with a HNG-X Acceptance
Board on Tuesday.
FUJ00097062
FUJ00097062
Guy
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 24 June 2010 17:03
To: Thomas Penny; Wilkerson Guy
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Penny,
No, that pretty well covers it. NB there is no guarantee that the duplicates are even complete sessions in which case the sum of all
transaction may even be out.
In summary, any detailed analysis of the finances of a Branch which is done with duplicate transactions without realising that there
are duplicates (and so removing them) will give incorrect results.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
ss Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee
that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 14:25
To: Wilkerson Guy
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Guy
These are original records which have been duplicated when copying to Audit Server. We are not suggesting that original
records have been duplicated.
If analysis was undertaken on the audit data some transactions would be duplicated; both plus and minus (we hope!).
Analysis on stock units could be out as TI would show duplicated transfers and equally would TO. Cash on hand analysis
would also be out.
Gareth — is there anything else I need to add?
Penny
Penny Thomas
FUJ00097062
FUJ00097062
Security Analyst, Customer Services
nited, Registered treet, London V
mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. I a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not
guarantee that this E-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Wilkerson Guy
Sent: 24 June 2010 14:16
To: Thomas Penny
Subject: RE: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Penny,
Would the additional transactions make any difference to the charges for a Sub-Postmaster?
Guy
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 24 June 2010 12:39
To: Welsh Graham; Van Achte Gaetan; Munro Donna; Thompson Peter; Wilkerson Guy
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI; Holmes Alan
Subject: FW: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
An update to my note sent yesterday.
More detailed analysis shows:-
Number of ARQs affected 112
Number of ARQs where 1 or 2 instances highlighted 17
which indicates bona fide activity
Number of ARQs WIP 7
12 ARQs where court action is known; number of cases 2
8 ARQs returned where witness statement requested 3
but not yet provided; number of cases
ARQs where no court activity is known 76
Audit Development are currently working on a fix which is expected to be available Tuesday 29 June.
Gareth has suggested the following explanation for POL:-
With Horizon counters, the mechanism by which Data is audited has always worked on the principle that it is
acceptable to audit the same data more than once — in particular if in doubt as to whether or not it has been
previously audited successfully.
The Mechanism used on Horizon to retrieve the data took this into account and only presented one instance of such
FUJ00097062
FUJ00097062
duplicate data in the ARQ extracts.
However it has recently been noticed that the HNG-X retrieval mechanism does not remove such duplicates and a
quick scan of the ARQs provided to Post Office Ltd since the change to the new system indicates that abut 35% of
the ARQs might contain some duplicate data. A Peak has been raised to remove such duplicate data in the future.
However until the fix is developed, tested and deployed, there is a possibility that data is duplicated.
The reliable way to identify a duplicate transaction is to use the <Num> attribute that is used to generate the unique
sequence numbers. Unfortunately, this attribute is not currently included in the Excel version of ARQ data that has
been passed to Post Office Ltd in the past. This will be included in all future ARQs until the problem is fixed.
Meanwhile all that can be done on existing ARQs is look for transactions that appear to be duplicates. Note that we
have identified a scenario with Postal Services transactions where multiple, identical mails items are accepted (ie
the Quantity button is set to greater than 1), but Postage Labels are printed for each individual item. This results in
separate transactions being generated for each item, which are identical in the ARQ extracts (there is another minor
difference in the raw data apart from the <Num> attribute, but this different attribute is not currently included in the
ARQ extract).
I'd like to speak with my counterpart this afternoon, please could you give comments by return?
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
Group Account
http:
Fujitsu Services Limited, Regis
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not
guarantee that this E-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Thomas Penny
Sent: 23 June 2010 13:12
To: Welsh Graham; Van Achte Gaetan; Munro Donna; Thompson Peter
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI; Holmes Alan
Subject: Duplication of Transaction Records on ARQ Returns
Importance: High
All
Please find attached an initial report on this problem.
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
http:
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22, Baker Street, London W1U
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not
guarantee that this E-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
FUJ00097062
FUJ00097062