FUJ00155245
FUJ00155245
From: Stewart Mike[/O=-EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEWARTM]
Sent: Wed 03/09/2008 4:13:44 PM (UTC)
To: Jenkins Gareth Gf
of
Ce: Birkinshaw Royf
Subject: I RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Chambers Anne
Gareth, I will do my best.
Regards Mike
Mike Stewart SDM On-Line Services
Royal Mail Group Account/UK Private Sector
FUJITSU
ire, Ri
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office: 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
hits Tse
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: Jenkins Gareth Gl
Sent: 03 September 2008 17:09
To: Stewart Mike; Chambers Anne O.
Ce: Birkinshaw Roy
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Mike,
We agreed this afternoon that I would draft an update and run it past John Burton. Hopefully that will happen during
tomorrow. Presumably you can ignore Shaun until Friday?
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
http: uk fujitsu‘com
cs 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: Stewart Mike
FUJ00155245
FUJ00155245
Sent: 03 September 2008 16:59
To: Jenkins Gareth GI; Chambers Anne 0.
Cc: Birkinshaw Roy
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Gareth, Do we have an update only I have had Shaun chase me again re this issue at Craigpark.
Regards Mike
Mike Stewart SDM On-Line Services
Royal Mail Group Account/UK Private Sector
FUJITSU
GRO
[services fujtsu.com
Web: htt
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 9 egistered Office: London, W1U 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.
Jenkins Gareth GI
22 August 2008 17:37
Chambers Anne O; Stewart Mike
Birkinshaw Roy
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Anne / Mike,
Thanks for that. There are some investigations going on in this area. Roy has a meeting on Tuesday evening
and we'll make sure we get back to you with a way forward in terms of communicating with POL after that.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
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: Chambers Anne O
Sent: 22 August 2008 15:53
To: Stewart Mike
Cc: Jenkins Gareth GI
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
FUJ00155245
FUJ00155245
Mike,
My original email (written in a rush) was unintentionally misleading.
There are just two instances where the Riposte lock event occurred AND is known to have caused a
receipts and payments mismatch - one at Craigpark and one elsewhere.
There are many other instances (and have been since the system first went live) where the Riposte lock
event occurs but does not cause a receipts and payments mismatch. So at Craigpark I found one other
such event, but as I said, I checked what was being done at the point it occurred and concluded that it
had not resulted in any financial problem.
There are a couple of other known consequences following a Riposte lock event - one with the DEF
stockunit, as quoted in the original email, and now we know of one more which caused a harvester
exception. Neither of these was at Craigpark.
I'm not trying to minimise this problem and its potential consequences, and we are trying to make some
further checks into recent instances, but in the grand scheme of things these are incredibly few and far
between.
Anne
From: — Stewart Mike
Sent: 22 August 2008 15:34
To: Jenkins Gareth GI
Ce: Chambers Anne O
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Gareth, Re the workshop and the response I gave to Shaun on my action about how often this incident
had occurred. My response was if you remember was that we have only seen this occur 3 times in the
estate (I think I said in the last 3 years) Twice at Craigpark (once was benign) and once somewhere else
which caused a discrepancy.
Shaun is seeking further clarification of "What is the specific action, button pressed, timing of the rolling
over" " that can cause the incident. His exact words were we must have 100s of PMs who do the Roll
Over into the next TP at around 19:00 at Harvesting time, so what is specific that Craigpark have had it
twice. He needs to understand the isuue to pass it onto his Fraud department as Craigpark is being
investigated about other discrepancies???.
PS I am aware of the other Security Audit being done into this issue so have only copied you and Anne.
Regards Mike
Mike Stewart SDM On-Line Services
Royal Mail Group Account/UK Private Sector
FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
GRO
"Web" Hip /senices fujisa‘com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office: 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 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.
FUJ00155245
FUJ00155245
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 04 August 2008 13:19
To: Stewart Mike
Ce: Drake Claire; Peach Mik; Card Cheryl; Chambers Anne O
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Mike,
I've now had a read through the PEAKs that Anne quotes.
I'm slightly surprised that this problem has only occurred 3 times and twice in one branch (though in the
13" Feb case it was benign). My understanding is that a “red event” would be generated by the problem
which ought to result in SMC raising a call (depending on exactly what KELs say for this). However it
may well be that such “red events” are generated in other circumstances and so are not that easy to spot
in isolation when trawling through the counter events (I need guidance from SSC on this). Note also that
if the bug occurs, then there would be a Receipts and Payments mismatch which ought to result in a call
to NBCS which would be passed to HSD (that happened for the occurrence at the other branch, but not
for Craigpark).
Is it practical for SSC to carry out periodic checks for this event (say a weekly query on the event
database) and in particular look for those occurring between 18:59 and 19:30 which might be a symptom
of this issue? If so this would be significantly less risky than a bug fix given the low number of
occurrences. I understand what is being proposed for the bug fix and if it were to go wrong could impact
the whole estate so avoiding such a fix sounds like the correct decision. However I doubt if POL would
have been involved in that decision. Given the incidents we were discussing on Friday, we do need to
be able to re-assure POL that we would spot any further occurrences and have a mechanism to correct
the accounts (if necessary) even if we don't fix the root cause.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
RST fujtsuccon
ws 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: Stewart Mike
Sent: 04 August 2008 11:46
To: Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: Drake Claire; Peach Mik; Card Cheryl; Chambers Anne O
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Gareth, Seeing as I had an action to report on this incident in that it had happened twice at this
office (although re Anne's note it only affected the balancing once), I can report to POL that we
have seen this twice in the estate, but do I report that we have a fix for it? Also do you know if it
was a joint by us and POL not to fix it as there were only 2 incidents.
Regards Mike
FUJ00155245
FUJ00155245
Mike Stewart SDM On-Line Services
Royal Mail Group Account/UK Private Sector
FUJITSU
Lovelace Read, Bracknell. Berkshire. RG1Z.8SN_
Fujits
ervices Limited, Registered in England no 96
egistered Office
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: Chambers Anne 0
Sent: 01 August 2008 15:49
7 Jenkins Gareth Gl; Stewart Mike
Drake Claire; Peach Mik; Card Cheryl
Subject: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Sorry Gareth I should have remembered this one since I have been asked about it several times.
The query, and several responses, are on PC0158102. This explains in some detail that the
problem occurred just once. A Riposte Lock event was generated on this and one previous
occasion, but I explained that on the earlier occasion it had not affected the balance (I had
visions of being in court explaining the event log again).
The cause of the underlying problem is known, see PC0152376, which is the only other known
instance, at a different branch, where it has caused an R&P mismatch. There was also a problem
with the same root cause at a third branch, where the figures were ok but DEF did not roll over.
There is a fix available, but given the low incidence of problems (and the errors introduced on
the back of other fixes) it was decided not to implement it. But maybe, since we have no way of
monitoring for it, and R&P mismatches may not be reported by the PM, this decision should be
reviewed?