POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page I of 11
Peak Incident Management System
cau [PC0223870 Call Logger I_ Customer Call_ -- EDSC
ference
Release Targeted At -- HNG-X 08.82 _ ITop Ref PC0224126
Call Type _ILive Incidents/Defects Priority B -- Business restricted
Contact IEDSC Call Status Dincneoa Product Error
Target Date I22/03/2013 Effort (Man Days) I0
Summary — {Branch 011458 has an unexplained discrepancy
Iacferences Type Value
[DevIntRel-Director Live Supp.Test
ITRIOLE for Service A2401368
Clone Call PC0224126
Collections [Name User Date
IRP-release_planning Louise Barham 20-May-2013 14:48:07
IBIFApproved Lorraine Elliott {25-Mar-2013 11:43:17
Statement _[USE" Date
Anne Chambers 20-Mar-2013 15:10:25
This change would alert support teams to the existence of a system problem affecting
branch accounts, rather than having to wait for it to be reported. Such a problem,
affecting 14 branches, was not reported until 15 months after it first could have been
noticed.
Progress Narrative
IDate:25-Feb-2013 16:55:53 User: Customer Call_
CALL PC0223870 opened
Details entered are:-
summary:The Branch as an unexplained discrepancy
call Type:L
call Priority:c
lTarget Release:HNG-X R6.50
Routed to:EDSC - _Unassigned_
52 Use
bate :25-Feb-2013 1 _Customer Call_
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
Date/Time Raised: Feb 25 2013 4:51PM
Priority: C
contact Name
contact Phone
originator: XXXXXX@TFSO1
loriginator's reference: A2401368
Product Serial No:
Product Site: 011458
[Transfer Note: Transfer Group from 'POA-HSD IMT' to 'POA-FJ-PEAK'
lthe Branch as an unexplained discrepancy. They balanced and rolled trading
Iperiod on 6 Feb, they have one stock unit AA and this was balanced with a loss
lof £39.57 which was transferred to local suspense however the figure that was
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=PC0223870 18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 2 of 11
cleared out from local suspense was much higher £9839.45.
II have carried out transaction logs for all transactions from date range 31 Jan
to 06 Feb. Branch has submitted copies of the final balance reports from TP 10
IBP4 and TP1O BP 5 the balance report for TP10 BPS shows discrepancy transferred
of £39.57 and then discrepancy resolved £9839.45. The transaction log completed
for all transaction does not show any other figures being entered into or
removed from housekeeping/local suspense account.
jode 1
06/02/2013 16:50 to 16:51
TP 10 BP4/5
IHASOOL
Incident History:
2013-02-25 16:51:20 [ Richardson, Mark ]
INIT : Create a new request/incident/problem/change/issue
2013-02-25 16:54:19 [ Richardson, Mark ]
Zneun_en_poa : Open Notification
2013-02-25 16:54:19 [ Richardson, Mark ]
Zneut_en_poa : Transfer Notification
2013-02-25 16:54:54 [ Richardson, Mark ]
Zneut_en_poa : Transfer Notification
Date: 25-Feb-2013 16:59:22 User:Clive Turrell
Product General/Other/Misc -- Unknown General/Other/Misc (version unspecified)
ladded.
Date: 25-Feb-2013 17:02:16 User:Clive Turrell
IThe Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Anne Chambers
Progress was delivered to Consumer
bate :25-Feb-2013 17:47:51 User:Anne Chambers
Ithe call summary has been changed from:-
Ithe Branch as an unexplained discrepancy
the call summary is now:-
Branch 011458 has an unexplained discrepancy
Date: 26-Feb-2013 13:18:12 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
hen they completed the balance on 6th Feb and cleared the loss from Local
suspense, the amount cleared was £9839.45 instead of the loss they had put into
local suspense, which was £39.57.
IThis appears to be a consequence of something that happened during the previous
ITP rollover on 2nd Jan: a 'gain to local suspense’ of £9799.88 was included in
ithe DEF opening figures.
I don't think any of the local suspense products should ever appear in opening
figures, however I have found 14 such lines (all prod 6295 Gain to LS, all
different branches). Unfortunately all created Nov-Dec last year, so there is
almost no remaining counter evidence.
18/07/2013
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 3 of 11
continuing to invetigate cause and implications.
(End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 26-Feb-2013 13:33:23 User:Kevin McKeown
The call Priority has been changed from C
the call Priority is now B
IDate:26-Feb-2013 13:33:53 User:Anne Chambers
Evidence Added - 5R
showing local suspense
Date: 26-Feb-2013 13:53:26 User:Anne Chambers
je only keep opening figures for 3 old trading periods, so can't be sure when
roblem started.
Date: 26-Feb-2013 14:55:35 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response] -
sked Ibrahim at NBSC (
lavailable - he'll obtain’
[End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 26-Feb-2013 16:51:32 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
suspense report for TP9 (2nd Jan 2013) received, which shows no anomaly. I
thought it might show 9799.88- c/f, since that amount is b/f on the TP10
report, but it doesn't.
IThe branch also sent the suspense report for TP10 2012, with the comment that
they had the same problem last year - and although it is a very faint copy, it
lappears to show 9799.88- b/f.
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 26-Feb-2013 16:53:46 User:Anne Chambers
EVidence Added - Branch su n
Date: 26-Feb-2013 17:56:09 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
Have asked what the branch did about the problem last year.
lso checking what the archiving strategy has been for
IBRDB_RX_SU_OPENING BALANCE in the past, and when it changed.
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
IResponse was delivered to Consumer
Date: 27-Feb-2013 16:18:08 User:Anne Chambers
IEevidence File Updated - Updated not
/_extra
na
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef= 18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 4 of 11
pate: 27-Feb-2013 16:20:17 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
II have now found the cause of the problem: some data from autumn 2010 has been
retained in table BRDB _RX_BTS DATA, for 14 separate branches. These branches
ill all have been affected by this problem late 2011 and late 2012, though in
lsome cases the amounts involved are small.
[Branch Affected TP AMOUNT
1002647 9 -6.71
1002840 9 140.61
1010007 -0.01
1011458 id} -9,799.88
1012004 16.12
1054011 3.34
101832 5.84
104937
155025
156715
211844
243242
266418
297611
COOLOOCOWLVELHLO
'
a
7
w
i
s
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
IResponse was delivered to Consumer
Date: 27-Feb-2013 16:22:43 User:Anne Chambers
still to be investigated:
Exactly how did these records cause the observed effect?
Why were the records not removed by the normal archiving process?
What impact has the problem had on the branch accounts?
What impact has the problem had on POLSAP?
How do we remove the records to prevent future problems?
Were there any affected branches which have since closed?
I-There are 19 other branches which have old data in the affected table, but not
relating to Local Suspense ? could this cause any problems with the branch
accounts? (some may be temporarily closed).
bate :28-Feb-2013 14:06:00 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
Further investigations:
** Exactly how did these records cause the observed effect?
Ithe old data is picked up, along with the correct data, during the Branch
Itrading Statement production (at the end of the period BEFORE the problem is
isible at the branch). The old opening figure (which may be for one or more of
the Local Suspense products 6295-6298, associated with an unknown stock unit)
lgets converted during branch rollover, to prod 6295 Gain to Local Suspense
(though the sign may be positive or negative), and written as an opening figure
for the subsequent period, stock unit DEF.
t the end of the second period, this is included when the amount to be cleared
from Local Suspense is calculated (when the last stock unit is rolled over), so
ithe branch is forced to clear it.
t* How to identify the problem from branch reports:
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef= 18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 5 of 11
Branch Trading Statement: the sum of the two Discrepancy Transferred lines does
Inot match the total of the two Discrepancy Resolved Lines
suspense Account report: the B/Fwd figure on the report does not match the
Ic/Fwd figure on the report for the previous TP.
"* Why were the records not removed by the normal archiving process? The
records, created Autumn 2010, belonged to stock units that have since been
leleted. Normally they would have been removed before the ‘deleted stock unit!
lentry itself was removed from the list of stock units, but there were some
teething problems with archiving and they were ‘orphaned' and are now ignored
y the archiving process.
** How do we remove the records to prevent future problems? Once well away from
the problem TP, eg once into TP 1, get the branches to recreate a stock unit
ith the same name as the problem one, then delete it again. Or we just delete
them from the database under MSC.
** Were there any affected branches which have since closed? I have checked
ranches closed within the last 90 days, all ok. For branches closed longer ago
hich might be under investigation, the suspense account reports and BTS could
checked (see above).
s+ There are 19 other branches which have old data in the affected table, but
Inot relating to Local Suspense ? could this cause any problems with the branch
accounts?
IT have checked very carefully and conclude that these extra lines have no
ongoing impact on the branch accounts.
k* There is old data in some other tables that use the same archiving strategy
I this doesn't affect the branch balancing in the same way, but what would
appen if a stock unit with the same name was recreated?
** Any corrective actions?
Ihocal suspense should always be zero when the branch is rolled over - should
this be checked and reported?
I think the archiving strategy is now ok, but this may need to be reviewed.
still to do:
k* What impact has the problem had on the branch accounts?
k* What impact has the problem had on POLSAP?
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
esponse was delivered to Consumer
Date: 28-Feb-2013 14:24:24 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
correction:
** Exactly how did these records cause the observed effect?
IThe old data is picked up, along with the correct data, during the Branch
Itrading Statement production (at the end of the period BEFORE the problem is
isible at the branch). The ****old BTS data line**** (which may be for one or
lore of the Local Suspense products 6295-6298, associated with an unknown stock
nit) gets converted during branch rollover, to prod 6295 Gain to Local
suspense (though the sign may be positive or negative), and written as an
opening figure for the subsequent period, stock unit DEF.
t the end of the second period, this is included when the amount to be cleared
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef= 18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 6 of 11
from Local Suspense is calculated (when the last stock unit is rolled over), so
ithe branch is forced to clear it.
[End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 28-Feb-2013 17:17:58 User:Anne Chambers
Evidence File Updated - Another update of no
/_extracts
IDate:28-Feb-2013 17:18:31 User:Anne Chambers
Evidence Added — €
Date: 06-Mar-2013 16:05:10 User:Anne Chambers
(Start of Response]
IThere was a conference call with POL (Laura Darby, Mark Wardle and others) on
28th Feb about this call, and the spreadsheet showing the impact of the problem
lon the 14 branches was sent to them by Steve Bansal. We are waiting to hear
from Mark whether this is sufficient information for them to resolve the
consequences on the branches and POLSAP.
je will then need to get the old data causing the problem removed from the
database (before TP 9 - Oct-Nov 2013) and consider whether extra checks should
put in place to trap similar anomalies in the future.
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 08-Mar-2013 13:37:01 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
POL will be arranging another conf call next week.
[End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 08-Mar-2013 13:41:46 User:Anne Chambers
cloning call so that we can get the old data removed....
Date: 08-Mar-2013 13:41:56 User:Anne Chambers
(Call has been cloned to Call:PC0224126 by User:Anne Chambers
Date: 08-Mar-2013 15:21:37 User:Anne Chambers
(Start of Response]
cloned call PC0224126 sent to development to get old records removed from BRDB.
[End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Ipate:15-Mar-2013 11:10:18 User:Anne Chambers
[Target Date/Time updated: new value is 22/03/2013 16:55
[Start of Response]
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 7 of 11
Following another conf call Thurs 14th March, more information has been sent to
POL.
(End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date :15-Mar-2013 11:18:31 User:Anne Chambers
Evidence Added - email, timeli mple, another spreadsheet to POL
Date: 20-Mar-2013 14:56:34 User:Anne Chambers
[Start of Response]
Ican we add an extra check into the branch balancing process so errors like this
ould be reported in future (similar to the event which is raised if the BTS
ITrading position is not zero)?
Possible checks are
la) do the next TP's Opening Figures, generated for stock unit DEF, include any
ILocal Suspense products? (raise event if they don't net to zero value)
) does the sum of the two Discrepancy Transferred lines on the BTS, for the
Branch Total, equal the sum of the two Discrepancy Resolved lines? (raise event
if not).
For the problem under investigation here, the first check would have identified
la problem when branch 11458 rolled into TP 10, and the second check at the end
lof TP 10.
[End of Response]
Response code to call type L as Category 40 -- Pending -- Incident Under
Investigation
Response was delivered to Consumer
Date: 20-Mar-2013 15:10:25 User:Anne Chambers
new Business Impact has been added:
This change would alert support teams to the existence of a system problem
affecting branch accounts, rather than having to wait for it to be reported.
such a problem, affecting 14 branches, was not reported until 15 months after
it first could have been noticed.
Date: 20-Mar-2013 15:20:28 User:Anne Chambers
IThe Call record has been transferred to the team: BIF
Progress was delivered to Consumer
Date: 26-Mar-2013 10:09:57 User:Gareth Jenkins
Routing Peak to GDC to add in alerts as requested by Anne Chambers in update
timed at 2013-03-20 14:56:34.
bate :26-Mar-2013 10:11:20 User:Gareth Jenkins
[The Call record has been transferred to the team: xCtr_GDC
lUser:Gareth Jenkins Confirmed that this Incident may be passed to the external
company with the attached evidence.
Progress was delivered to Consumer
Date: 26-Mar-2013 10:15:58 User:Ravindra Kumar
Ithe Call record has been transferred to the team: xCtr_BAC_GDC
IThe Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Progress was delivered to Consumer
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 8 of 11
pate: 27-Mar-2013 13:20:55 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
nalysis and Root cause:
lcenerally all Local suspense movement transactions are written during stock
lunit TP rollover (6295/6296),during last stock unit rollover, and also from the
Housekeeping menu (6297/6298) .
lon office rollover, local suspense from branch opening figures and movements
for all stock units are netted off, and should result in 0 value carried
forward.
Ihen Office rollover ,the previous suspense opening figures and suspense
jovements for current trading period are summed, netted off, and written as new
suspense opening figures to SU DEF.
In the present scenario,the previous local suspense movements for a deleted
Istockunit are retained in BRANCH BTS DATA. (i.e £9799.88).This Local suspense
record was not cleared while next office rollover since SU was deleted.
fter 205 days the stock unit was created with same name So sytem summed off
lold non-zero local suspense movements amount from BRANCH BTS DATA along with Ls
jovements from present trading period. (i.e £9799.88 + £39.57 = £9839.45).
IReproducing Steps:
ll. Create a stock unit 'SUl'and attach to present user.
2. Carry out a local supense transaction by declaring cash £100 for SU1.
3. Rollover all stockunits to next TP.
4. Attach user to another stock unit and delete stockunit SUL.
5. Rollover Office to next TP. (Here system doesn't complain about LS record of
IsUl since it was deleted.)
6. Change system date to after 205 days.
7. carry out a local supense transaction by declaring stock £23 for present SU.
8. Create a stock unit with same name which is deleted 'SUL'.
9. Rollover office to next Tp.
LO. Suspense Roport and Office Trading statement shows total clearted amount
lfor current TP is £123. (Evidence attached).
IDate:27-Mar-2013 13:22:50 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
ction placed on Team:xCtr_BAC_GDC, User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Date: 27-Mar-2013 13:25:45 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
The Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Ravindra Kumar
Progress was delivered to Consumer
Date: 27-Mar-2013 13:26:16 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Please review.
Date: 27-Mar-2013 13:36:56 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Evidence Added - eviad
Date: 02-Apr-2013 11:37:15 User:Ravindra Kumar
nalysis is fine. Please put the fix impact template.
IDbate: 02-Apr-2013 11:37:32 User:Ravindra Kumar
[The Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Progress was delivered to Consumer
18/07/2013
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 9 of 11
pate: 03-Apr-2013 15:08:49 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
[Start of Response]
Product error diagnosed.
[End of Response]
IResponse code to call type L as Category 41 -- Pending -- Product Error
Diagnosed
IResponse was delivered to Consumer
IDate:16-Apr-2013 07:24:44 User:Sarita Pujari
ction has been removed from the call
IDate:18-Apr-2013 08:34:22 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
IDEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF FIX:
ISPECIFY THE HNG-X PLATFORMS IMPACTED:
Counter.
[TECHNICAL SUMMARY:
Ithis change will affect counter pdl files.
[LIST OF KNOWN DIMENSIONS DESIGN PARTS AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE:
IDEV EFFORT IN MANDAYS:
2 days for Development + testing
IMPACT ON USER:
n Error prompt will be shown to the user when next TP opening figures of DEF
ISU conatins any non zero Localsuspense movements.
nother error prompt will be shown when the sum of the two Discrepancy
Itransferred lines on the BTS, for the Branch Total, Not equal the sum of the
two Discrepancy Resolved lines.
IThe purpose of these Error Events is to alert the support teams that something
as occurred that shouldn?t have done so that they can investigate it quickly.
IMPACT ON OPERATIONS:
Impact is medium as previous local suspense movemnets of a deleted SU are
rocessing in present TP when same SU is created again.
lUser will be surprised with discrepancy of local suspense figures which is not
for done for the current TP.
HAVE RELEVANT KELS BEEN CREATED OR UPDATED?
yet to be created.
IMPACT ON TEST:
Irxaplained testing steps above.
IRISKS (of releasing and of not releasing proposed fix):
Risk is low since there is two events wil be added.
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
18/07/2013
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 10 of 11
IMPACT ON USER:
n Error event will be generated when next TP opening figures of DEF SU
conatins any non zero Localsuspense movements.
nother error event will be generated when the sum of the two Discrepancy
Itransferred lines on the BTS, for the Branch Total, Not equal the sum of the
two Discrepancy Resolved lines.
Ithe purpose of these Error Events is to alert the support teams that something
Ihas occurred that shouldn?t have done so that they can investigate it quickly.
IDate:24-Apr-2013 13:46:47 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
ction placed on Team:xCtr_BAC_GDC, User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Date: 24-Apr-2013 13:46:59 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
IThe Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Ravindra Kumar
Progress was delivered to Consumer
IDate:24-Apr-2013 13:47:25 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Please Review.
Date :17-May-2013 09:32:37 User:Ravindra Kumar
lok With Analysis.
IDate:17-May-2013 09:32:48 User:Ravindra Kumar
Ithe Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Progress was delivered to Consumer
Date :17-May-2013 11:09:50 User:Ravindra Kumar
Ithe call Target Release has been moved to Proposed For -- HNG-X 08.82
77-May-2013 11:11:56 User:Ravindra Kumar
1 has been removed from the call
:17-May-2013 11:17:19 User:Ravindra Kumar
ction placed on Team:RelMngmntForum
Date: 20-May-2013 14:48:07 User:Louise Barham
IThe call Target Release has been moved to Targeted At -- HNG-X 08.82
Date: 20-May-2013 14:48:27 User:Louise Barham
ITfargeted in PTF as requested
Date: 20-May-2013 14:48:32 User:Louise Barham
ction has been removed from the call
IDate:19-Jun-2013 12:31:55 User:Jon Hulme
The design is to raise events on branch rollover if:
la) The next TP's Opening Figures, generated for stock unit DEF, include Local
18/07/2013
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef=
POL00029671
POL00029671
PC0223870 -- HardCopy -- Rob Gelder Page 11 of 11
suspense products that don't net to zero value.
) The sum of the two Discrepancy Transferred lines on the BTS, for the Branch
ffotal, do not equal the sum of the two Discrepancy Resolved lines.
Ithe design is to follow the same pattern as the TradingPositionNotEqualToZero
lerror and event created when the BTS trading position is non zero (see
tsManagement InfoSummaySection_v2Template.vmxml, ReportingHelperBLO.java and
JAccountingReportBLO.pdl), i.e. error
"0903.com. fujitsu.poa.ctrc.businesslogic.reporting.nonZeroTradingPosition" and
levent id 117.
so 2 new system errors to be logged at error level, and two new deferred
levents. The new events will not appear on the counter event log report.
suggested system errors:
"0904.com. fujitsu.poa.ctre.businesslogic.reporti
Ing. nonZeroLocalSuspenseBranchOpeningFigures"
"0905.com. fujitsu.poa.ctrc.businesslogic.reporting.
fni smatchedBTSdiscrepancyTrans ferredandResolved"
Event ids:
124 "The branch local suspense opening figures for TP %TP% do not net to zero.”
125 "The BTS branch discrepancy transferred totals do not match the branch
ldiscrepancy resolved totals.”
Ithe event id spreadsheet in now formally held in Dimensions as
IDES/APP/HLD/2255. Please can you update http://10.182.7.102/doku/doku.php?
id=appserv: reco
Irdbusinessevent_190&s=record%20business%20event to refer to this HLD - half way
liown the page it has a link to the old events spreadsheet in project web —
think link should be removed and the reader referred to DES/APP/HLD/2255 in
Dimensions.
IDate:18-Jul-2013 15:42:09 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Evidence Added - c
IDate:18-Jul-2013 15:42:32 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
[Action placed on Team:xCtr_BAC_GDC, User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
pate: 18-Jul-2013 15:42:44 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Ifthe Call record has been assigned to the Team Member: Venkata Peddapothula
Progress was delivered to Consumer
pate :18-Jul-2013 15:43:06 User:Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
Please review code patches.
[Root Cause None
Logger I Customer Call_ -- EDSC
Subject Product IGeneral/Other/Misc -- Unknown General/Other/Misc (version unspecified)
Assignee Venkata Peddapothula -- xCtr_ BAC_GDC
Last Progress 18-Jul-2013 15:43 -- Leela Dhanalakshmi Nune
http://peak2.peak.fs.fujitsu.com:8080/PrintCallDetails.jsp?CallRef= 18/07/2013