FUJ00189522 - Email from John Simpkins to Steve Parker Re: Roll 2 Action 9 - Horizon data for Group Litigation

Evidence on official site

FUJ00189522
FUJ00189522

From: Simpkins, John[/o=Fujitsu Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=9a0ae9d333ee489bb3e0a6402¢3]
Sent: Thur 24/01/2019 2:15:16 PM (UTC)
To: Parker, Steve. H
Subject: RE: Roll 2 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497] Action 9
Nope ©

From: Parker, Steve

Sent: 24 January 2019 1.
To: Simpkins, John
Subject: RE: Roll 2 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497] Action 9

Hum, OK but I assume that wouldn’t cover a situation where the data is obtained from squirrel, other nodes?

From: Simpkins, John {
Sent: Thursday, Janua'
To: Parker, Steve 4 GRO
Subject: RE: Roll 2 [W!

A Peak free text searc for “return counter to SSC” find 715 Peaks — that may be a way forward?

Regards
John

From: Parker, Steve
Sent: 24 January 2019
To: Lenton, Matthew
Dave
Cc: McKeown, Kevin

jewsome, Pete 7 Ibbett,

‘Gareth Jenkins ¢. } Simpkins, John

Subject: RE: Roll 2 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497] Action 9
Suggest we leave until next meeting. The more I look at this I just can’t see a sensible way of doing it.

Steve

From: Lenton, Matthew

parker, Steve - Ibbett, Dave

Gareth Jenkins ¢

Simpkins, John
Subject: RE: Roll 2 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497] Action 9

Ah — you'll see I already sent a kind of shortened version of it so far, since Steve seemed to be saying that they were
still working on it... ? Then as well as the table below of Peaks, there is the other table of OCP analysis, presume we’d
need to combine, but not sure if it makes sense to do so as they stand?

Matthew Lenton
Post Office Account Document Manager
P&PS, Digital Technology Services
FUJ00189522
FUJ00189522

Fujitsu
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
Phone:
Email

Web: https:/Avww. fujitsu.com/global/

From: Newsome, Pete
Sent: 24 January 2019 1
To: Parker, Stev

Lenton, Matthew Ibbett, Dave

; Simpkins, John

Subject: RE: Roll 2 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497] Action 9
Matthew

I am happy we put Steve’s answer back to WBD and await their comments and questions as we already warned them
of the lack of use of OCPs for BAU support work.

Pete

Pete Newsome
Account Manager
DHL and Post Office Account, Fujitsu UK&l

Web: htip://uk fujitsu.com
Web: uk.fujitsu.com

My normal working week is Monday to Thursday

© f/¥iin/e\c-

<= gout
= Fujitsu named as wees
ari

Responsible Business ian
of the Year

Fujitsu is proud to partner with Action for Children
I-ClO: Global Intelligence for the ClO. Fujitsu's online resource for ICT leaders

Sponsors of the 2015 Rugby World Cup
wy Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

To meet with the new GDPR regulations we are reviewing our opt-in preferences. If you are happy to give opt-in consent to continue receiving relevant
marketing communications please visit this link and simply enter your email

From: Parker, Steve
Sent: Thursday, January Y
To: Lenton, Matthew < GRO +; Ibbett, Dave ¢_~ GRO, 4
Pete

Cc: McKeown, Kevin <

Newsome,

“} Simpkins, John

FUJ00189522
FUJ00189522

“FID27032497] Action 9

d
Review a sample of OCPs to give an indication as to how frequently transaction data was injected

Matthew,
Has become very difficult to provide.

The original plan was to examine sample months of change control data and produce rough figures. This lead me to
the realisation / remembering that support did not use change control in the earlier years for BAU support actions.
We relied on the audit trail within the incidents (Peaks) to document support actions. We had auditability of the work
done but no change control entries. Reasoning behind this was: implementing support actions ASAP, nobody around
to sign off overnight anyway, audit trail is enough where no financial impact.

I then turned to sampling via Peak records (keywords %EOD% and %Marooned%) but the volumes to examine are too
high. In approx. March 2003 a process was instigated to get 3LS to check the system for Marooned transactions on
counter hardware swap. This significantly increased the “marooned” category but in most cases no actual action was
needed:

Row Labels Count of

Peaks
2000 4
2001 10
2002 29
2003 885
2004 1701
2005 864
2006 430
2007 300
2008 3164
2009 704
2010 220
Grand Total 8311.

So, at the moment. Not sure how we’re going to achieve this one

Steve