WITN06680100
WITN06680100
Witness Name: Elizabeth Jane Evans-Jones (formerly Melrose)
Statement No: WITN06680100
Date: 12 February 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH JANE EVANS-JONES (formerly
MELROSE)
I, ELIZABETH JANE EVANS-JONES, will say as follows:-
INTRODUCTION
1. I have been invited to provide a witness statement to the Post Office Horizon IT
Inquiry (the “Inquiry”) pursuant to the Rule 9 Request No 1 dated 5 January 2023
(the “Request”). This witness statement is made to the Inquiry with the matters set
out in the Request.
2. I am a former Service Delivery Team Manager (“SDM”), employed by Fujitsu
Services Limited from October 2005 to August 2010. I worked with Post Office
Limited (“POL”) and the Post Office Account (“POA”) account from October 2005
until December 2007, before moving to a different account.
Page 1 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
3. Given the length of time that has elapsed, it is difficult for me to recall precise
details and specific events. I have, however, attempted to answer all questions
honestly and as comprehensively as I am able. In preparing this statement, I have
been assisted by Morrison Foerster. Morrison Foerster are representing Fujitsu as
a Core Participant in the Inquiry.
4. Throughout this statement, I refer to documents that have been brought to my
attention by the Inquiry. These documents are referred to using document URN
numbers as listed in the index accompanying this statement.
A. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
5. The Inquiry has asked me to set out briefly my professional background. In 1999,
after completing my university studies at Nottingham University, I was accepted
onto a graduate scheme at Pink Elephant Ltd. I held a number of roles at Pink:
Multi-lingual Service Desk Agent; User Administration Manager and Change
Manager supporting Yellow Pages.
6. In April 2003, I changed companies and moved to work for Threadneedle Asset
Management as a Technical Services Change Manager. The scope of my role
expanded and I became Service Control Manager (Change, Release and
Configuration), and briefly held the role of Head of Service Management as a
secondment due to the ill health of my manager.
7. In October 2005, I moved to work for Fujitsu Services Limited on the POA. In this
role I was a SDM, responsible for managing a team of SDMs from different areas
(as explained further below in paragraph 17).
Page 2 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
8. I was responsible for presenting the service performance of the aforementioned
services to POL’s Service Delivery Organisation. I was also responsible for the
continual improvement of these services. This included identifying missed service
level agreements (“SLAs”), Incidents, Problem Management (repeated incidents)
and holding meetings with POL to identify and agree the improvements (as
explained further below in paragraph 17(c)).
9. In December 2007 I left the POA, to manage the Global Service Desk for Thomson
Reuters, and I remained in this role for 2 years, before moving briefly to an
Implementation Manager role for 6 months.
10. In September 2010 I moved to Lisbon in Portugal and joined Xerox. Over the 10
years of my career in Xerox, I held the following service delivery and client
engagement roles: European Operations Manager for the Global Contact Centre
(GCC) and Head of Lisbon Operations; VP of Service Operations and Excellence;
VP Business Transformation; and VP Delivery Account Operations for Multi-
Country and Southem.
11.In September 2019, I moved to work for HCL Tech, following the outsourcing of
parts of the Xerox Delivery Operations. I am still working at HCL Tech providing
support to Xerox, and I am responsible for Global Services Delivery, Asset
Management, Reporting and Data Analytics, Service Improvement & Operational
Excellence, and Delivery Contract Performance.
Page 3 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
B. USE OF THE HORIZON IT SYSTEM
12. The Inquiry has asked me to explain when I used the Horizon IT System during
the course of my work. I never used nor had access to the Horizon IT system
during my time in POA, as my role was not related to the system.
C. MY ROLE IN RELATION TO THE HORIZON SYSTEM
13.1 have been asked by the Inquiry to describe my roles in relation to the Horizon IT
system. My role was not directly related to the Horizon IT system but was in relation
to the management of services which supported the branch network.
14.To explain my role, I will briefly outline the Fujitsu Core Services and Account
Model, as was in existence when I was employed by the company. At this point in
time, services in Fujitsu were either provided by Core Services or were Account
Owned Services.
15.Core Services provided standard services which would be required by more than
one account, but could be customised for each account. For example, for the
Horizon Service Desk, the same toolset (TfS) would be used across Core Services
but it would be customised for the account needs (initially POA used its own tool,
Powerhelp, but migrated to TfS), along with specific training for the account. Those
that worked within Fujitsu Core Service would not have been part of the POA (or
any other account team). Operational Management of the Core Services provided
functions resided with the management team in Core Services, who were
responsible and accountable to provide the services to the account team. The
account team had Service Delivery Managers who interacted with Core Services
Page 4 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
to ensure that the service met the contract requirement with the end customer. The
SDM also held the client relationship with the end-client (in this case, POL), and
provided the service performance reporting to the client through management
packs and services reviews. The SDM would also take any client feedback and
share this with core services. The SDM and Core Services would then work on any
improvement needed to the service based on the feedback from the client. POL
were actively engaged in the identification of Service Improvement and progress
was communicated through the Service Improvement Working Group (“SIWG’”).
16.Account Owned Services were Services that were very specific to the account
requirement and employees were part of the account team headcount. For these
services, the operational management and the end-client engagement was
normally held by the same person.
17.With the above in mind, my role in POA was:
a. To manage a team of SDMs, who were responsible for the following Core
Services Provided Services:
i. Horizon Service Desk (“HSD”): this involved engaging with the
Core Services Operations Manager to ensure delivery against the
agreed performance metrics for the first-line desk, and improvement
of the service. Ensuring that the Core Service function was in line
with the profit and loss / business case. The HSD SDM also
managed escalations from POL on the performance of the Service
Desk with the Core Services Team.
Page 5 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
ii. Branch Engineering and Logistics: this involved engaging with the
Core Services Operations Manager to ensure delivery against the
agreed performance metrics for the engineering service, and
improvement of the service. Ensuring that the Core Service function
was in line with the profit and loss / business case. The Branch
Engineering and Logistics SDM also managed escalations from POL
on the performance of the Engineering with the Core Services Team.
b. To manage a team of SDMs, who were responsible for the following
Account Owned Services:
i. Operational Branch Change (“OBC”): the OBC team was
responsible for the planning and management of the logistics and
costs associated with the physical opening of new POL branches,
the physical closing of locations and managing physical changes
(increase / decrease in counters) at locations. This included ensuring
that the premises was correctly configured for the counters, that
broadband was installed and that the counters were delivered. The
team also ensured that the agreed service performance levels were
met.
ii. Branch Availability: the connectivity to the branches was provided by
BT Open Reach, and was a broadband solution. This team held the
Supplier Relationship Management with BT Open Reach and the
management and resolution of connectivity issues with BT. When
branches experienced connectivity issues which could not be
Page 6 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
resolved by the desk, the Branch Availability Team assisted in the
resolution of these incidents by co-ordinating with BT. The team also
ensured that the agreed service performance levels were met.
iii. BIM (Branch Incident Managers) who attended to a site to assist with
the diagnosis and resolution of hardware or connectivity faults.
c. To compile service reporting and management information to share with
POL on the performance of the aforementioned services. There was a close
working relationship with POL in this regard. The Problem Management
Working Group, later termed the SIWG, featured members from POL and
Fujitsu that regularly worked together to improve the service. I attended the
Monthly Service Review Board, which was chaired by Fujitsu’s Head of
Service Delivery. To prepare for the Monthly Service Review, my team and
I added commentary to the Service Review Book. Such commentary was
on performance metrics of the services in my portfolio, explained certain
trends, provided reasons for variations to SLAs and provided details of
Major Incidents that were associated with my portfolio. In addition, my team
and I would also have ad-hoc specific meetings with POL to discuss
particular services. For example, there would be meetings on incidents or
service improvements. A weekly service management report was also
shared with POL, sharing a weekly update on, amongst other things, HSD
performance, engineering performance, incidents, branch management
visits. Fujitsu also issued Major Incident Reports (MIRs) to POL relating to
major incident investigations involving hardware. There was also an
Page 7 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
Operational Review Forum (ORF) for branch online services that was
attended by both POL and Fujitsu, which was an operational review of the
service, covering analysis of incidents, and identification of improvement
opportunities.
d. To act as a point of escalation for the POL Service Delivery Team on the
aforementioned services.
e. To ensure that the aforementioned services were delivered in line with the
internal financial forecasts and business case, and identify and manage any
variances beyond the forecasts.
D. ADVICE & ASSISTANCE
In order to prepare this section of my statement, I have been asked by the Inquiry to
consider various documents numbered 1 to 26 listed in the index at the end of this
statement..
HSD
18.1 have been asked to consider document FUJ00080034,
FUJ00080478, FUJ00080037, FUJ00080054, FUJ00002009,
FUJ00002036, FUJ00080043, FUJ00080472, FUJ00002042,
FUJ00080016, FUJ00080495, FUJ00080496, FUJ00080498,
FUJ00080500, FUJ00080501, FUJO0096658, FUJ00117290.
FUJ00080027,
FUJ00002034,
FUJ00002058,
FUJ00080499,
19. Regarding my role in relation to the HSD, I managed an SDM who was responsible
for the relationship with the Core Services Team, who were operationally
responsible for the desk services. I attended internal service reviews with the core
Page 8 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
services team in which the performance of the HSD was discussed and validated
against the agreed contractual metrics. Such metrics were shared with POL and
where there was a performance gap against these metrics the account team, the
core services team and POL worked collaboratively to implement improvements
to return the desk metrics back to green performance.
20.The HSD was primarily a log and flog function, as there were very limited first
line/level fixes that the desk could complete. I do not recall the exact type of
Incidents that the HSD could log and fix themselves. All other incidents were
logged and assigned to support teams. It is my opinion that the HSD were effective
in logging the Incidents, providing the first-level support and assigning to the
correct support group. There was an SLA in place as to how long a ticket could
remain in the service desk queue in the service management toolset. I do not
remember the duration.
21.The HSD was part of Fujitsu. Once the HSD agent determined the nature of the
Incident, and captured the necessary information from the SPM, the ticket was
logged in the Service Management Toolset and the Service Desk Agent assigned
the Incident to the correct support group. I consider the desk was effective in
passing Incidents to the appropriate Service Delivery Unit (“SDU”).
22.1 have been asked to describe my role in receiving or responding to complaints /
incidents relating to the Horizon System.
a. All Incidents were logged at the HSD and then were passed to the
appropriate SDU if the desk was not able to resolve at first point of contact.
Page 9 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
I was not involved in the receipt or responding to incidents, which followed
the incident management process without escalation.
. In the event of Incident escalation, this could either come directly from POL
or through the HSD. In the case of an escalation from the HSD, this would
be passed to the SDM responsible for the service to manage. In the event
of further escalation, as the SDM Team Manager, I was involved to ensure
that the escalation and the incident were progressed to closure, through
ensuring that the incident process was followed to completion. If the incident
was initially escalated to POL, Fujitsu would provide an incident report to
POL. In this case, Fujitsu would provide feedback to POL through a number
of forms, such as the weekly reports or MIRs. Incidents escalated to me
related to the portfolio of services under my responsibility as noted in
paragraph 17 above.
. When Security Incidents were logged, this was passed immediately to the
POA Security Manager, who was responsible for the management of the
Incident through to closure. Distribution of information about security
incidents was limited to those involved in the investigation as per the
process design. I do not recall being involved in the management of security
incidents, however any involvement I would have had would have been
limited to ensuring the correct people were connected into the process.
. As detailed in the complaints process, complaints were also logged at the
HSD, and passed to the SDM responsible for the service to investigate.
Complaints were made about resolved incidents, and POL and my team
Page 10 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
worked collaboratively to determine if the complaint was valid, and if so,
what the improvement action should be. Improvement areas were added
to the Service Improvement Plan and discussed at SIWG. My involvement
in the management of complaints was only when the feedback / complaint
response was disputed, in which case this was referred to myself and the
POL Service Manager to determine next steps.
23.In relation to the training of the HSD agents, face-to-face training was provided,
however, I do not recall the detail of the training nor the duration of the training
provided to agents. The agents were provided with scripts / pre-defined questions,
which they were expected to use when providing support to the SPM. In the
operational structure of the desk there were service controllers who were
responsible for ensuring that the desk metrics were met, and also for validating
with the team managers the quality of the agent interaction with the end callers.
To the best of my recollection there was also a customer satisfaction survey which
was completed, and the output from the review of agent calls and CSAT was
reviewed by the desk management to ensure the quality of the interactions was
satisfactory.
24.1 have been asked by the Inquiry how effective were POL and Fujitsu in managing
complaints. The process efficacy was reported on each month in metrics provided
at the monthly service review with POL. I do not recall the performance against
these metrics for the complaints process. However, as referred to in paragraph
22(d) above, there was a formal complaint process and the output of the process
was an input into the service improvement activity on the account.
Page 11 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
25.1 have been asked to provide my opinion on the efficiency of incident escalation.
For the services that were part of my portfolio, it is my opinion that incidents were
effectively escalated. When the account delivery team received an escalation
relating to the engineering service, online services, service desk or OBC, this was
picked up by the appropriate member of my team and owned and managed to
resolution with the engagement of the supplier teams (internal or external). I have
no view as to how escalations were managed for other support and delivery teams.
Performance Reporting
26.1 have been asked to consider document FUJ00002061, FUJ00002056 and
FUJ00002051.
27.As part of my role, I was responsible for ensuring that the SDMs in my team
updated the Service Review Book (“SRB”) with the performance against the
contractually agreed metrics, and commentary for their respective services.
Performance data was extracted from the toolsets by the Management Information
Team, and pre-loaded into the draft SRB. The SRB was shared with POL on a
monthly basis.
28.I have been asked for my opinion as to how effective I consider the reporting to be.
In my opinion, the reporting provided for my portfolio was effective. There was clear
and effective communication between the service management team and POL. In
terms of channels with POL, in general, issues would be escalated to me for the
services I was responsible for. If escalated further, it would then pass to the Head
of Service Management, who would deal with POL’s head of Service Management.
Providing Advice to Sub-postmasters / Branches
Page 12 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
29.I have been asked to consider document FUJ00081017 and FUJ00081046. .
30.In my role, I was not responsible for providing sub-postmasters / branches with
advice or assistance.
31.1 received escalated Incidents from the areas that I was responsible for, which had
passed through the HSD and the SDMs before reaching me. I then ensured that
my teams closed the incident in accordance with the Incident Management
Process in place at the time.
32. For issues raised with regards to my portfolio, to the best of my knowledge all steps
were taken to respond to concerns raised.
Further Support / Assistance for the SPM
33. Of the persons that I recall having engagement with over the duration of my tenure
on POA, I do not feel that more support could have been given to assist the SPM.
The persons I interacted with, both in Fujitsu and POL, were committed to ensuring
that we delivered strong and stable service performance for the services supported
by my team to the branches, and we worked to manage service interruptions as
effectively as possible. Fujitsu was able to meet its SLAs in these areas by closely
managing the services with core services, closely monitoring the performance on
a daily basis and implementing remediation actions when necessary. I cannot
comment on other services outside of my area of responsibility.
E. RECTIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM
Developing Procedures for Horizon IT System
Page 13 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
34.1 have been asked to consider various document FUJ00002010, FUJ00080024,
FUJ00080033 and FUJ00002112.
35.1 was listed as a reviewer on the documented procedures for rectifying and
problems and issues in the Horizon system. My area of expertise is Service
Management and my role was to ensure that the Horizon IT system procedures
accurately referenced the services management procedures on the account, such
as Incident Management and Operational Level Agreement (OLA) documentation.
I do not have a technical background and had no input into the actual technical
procedures. I also had no exposure into the efficacy of these procedures in
rectifying issues in Horizon.
F. ERRORS OR ISSUES WITH THE HORIZON SYSTEM
Issues with the Horizon System
36.The Inquiry has requested me to comment on my understanding of issues or
problems with the Horizon system. In particular, I have been asked to consider
various documents FUJ00092942, FUJ00092943, FUJ00095212, FUJ00095213,
FUJ00095331, FUJ00095332, FUJ00095576, FUJ00095577, FUJ00096845,
FUJ00084715 and FUJ00084717.
37. I am not a subject matter expert on the Horizon software, however I was aware
that software Incidents were logged with the HSD. My remit was to ensure that
these were accurately logged and passed in accordance with the agreed
timescales, to the correct SDU for them to diagnose and resolve the incidents. To
the best of my recollection, I was not involved in any analysis relating to the nature
Page 14 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
of the issues or problems with the Horizon system. Where software incident
resolution was delayed and this was escalated to me by POL, I would escalate this
to the SDU management to ensure the correct level of focus on the Incident.
However, as the Horizon software was not part of my portfolio, I was not involved
in the technical analysis or resolution of the Incident.
38. The information I received relating to the Horizon system incidents was provided
from the HSD and was service level performance data for the HSD and their
handling of these tickets. I was not aware of the nature of the issues in the system
other than the breakdown provided by the powerhelp codes as detailed in
FUJ00080499. It is my recollection that the software SDU would be aware of the
exact detail of the issues as they were responsible for Incidents on the software. I
was not aware of the impact on the wider Horizon IT system, as this was not in my
portfolio.
Capacity Reports
39.1 have been asked to consider various documents FUJ001 16314, FUJ00116331,
FUJ00116357, FUJ00116367, FUJ00116376, FUJ00116387, FUJ00116405,
FUJ00116457.
40.As I recall I was on the generic distribution list for the capacity reports, however
the information contained within was not relevant to the portfolio of services I
supported. It is my understanding that the purpose of the report was to show actual
and forecasted transaction volumes, however I did not use nor review the
information contained within the reports, and I was not aware of the failure rates
Page 15 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
detailed in the report nor the fact that these errors could cause discrepancies in
branch accounts.
Awareness of Errors in the System to cause Branch Discrepancies
41.As a result of some the of escalated incidents, which I directed to the Software
Team, I was aware that it had been reported by SPMs that the system could cause
branch discrepancies, however I do not recall these in detail.
Fujitsu Access Rights
42.As I had no direct involvement in the resolution of software issues, I do not recall
being aware of Fujitsu’s use of access rights and privileges to alter transaction
data or data in branch accounts, nor to implement fixes in horizon which would
impact transaction data or data in branch accounts.
Other information
43.1 am not able to recall any other information which I believe the chair should be
made aware of.
I believe the true.
Page 16 of 21
Index to the First Witness Statement of ELIZABETH JANE EVANS-JONES
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
URN
Description
Control Number
FUJ00080034
PO/Fujitsu RMGA End-To-
End Customer Complaints
Procedure — Joint Working
Document V2.0 — dated
24/12/2007
POINQ0086205F
FUJ00080027
Fujitsu/PO - POA Customer
Service Incident
Management Process
Definition V2.0 — dated
02/04/2007
POINQ0086198F
FUJ00080478
Report: Joint Working
Document to support the
Service Desk Service
provided to Post Office by
Fujitsu Services — dated
04/09/2008
POINQO086649F
FUJ00080037
Horizon Support services
business continuity plan,
Version 5.0 — dated
24/10/2007
POINQ0086208F
FUJ00080054
Fujitsu Report on POA
Customer service major
incident process — dated
02/09/2008
POINQ0086225F
FUJ00002009
Communications
Management Team: Service
Description (version 1.0) —
dated 09/06/2006
POINQ0008180F
FUJ00002034
Message Broadcast
Service: Service Description
— dated 24/08/2006
POINQ0008205F
FUJ00002036
Service Desk: Service
Description — dated
31/08/2006
POINQ0008207F
FUJ00080043
Fujitsu report on RUGA
customer service problem
management process (v2) —
dated 22/04/2008
POINQ0086214F
10
FUJ00080472
Report: This plan provides a
summarised description of
the Horizon Service Desk
(HSD) which supports the
POINQ0086643F
Page 17 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
No
URN
Description
Control Number
Horizon service. The
document also details the
planned actions that will be
taken to minimise the risk of
this service not being
available — dated
20/11/2008
11
FUJ00002042
Branch Network Service
Description — dated
28/02/2007
POINQ0008213F
12
FUJ00002058
Service Level Target and
Liquidated Damages
Exclusions — dated
20/11/2007
POINQ0008229F
13
FUJ00080016
POA Fujitsu/PO Customer
Service Incident
Management Process - V1.1
— dated 02/03/2007
POINQ0086187F
14
FUJ00080495
Report: report detailing the
prioritisation and call codes
for implementation incidents
logged on PowerHelp —
dated 17/04/2007
POINQOO86666F
15
FUJ00080496
Report: report detailing the
prioritisation and call codes
for Operational Business
Change incidents logged on
PowerHelp — dated
16/04/2007
POINQ0086667F
16
FUJ00080498
Report: report detailing the
prioritisation and call codes
for Reference Data incidents
logged on PowerHelp —
dated 23/04/2007
POINQO086669F
17
FUJ00080499
Report: report detailing the
prioritisation and call codes
for Software incidents
logged on PowerHelp —
dated 23/04/2007
POINQ0086670F
18
FUJ00080500
Report: document detailing
the prioritisation and call
codes for hardware
incidents logged on
PowerHelp — dated
23/04/2007
POINQ0086671F
Page 18 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
No
URN
Description
Control Number
19
FUJ00080501
Report: report details the
prioritisation and call codes
for Branch Network
Resilience, Closure,
Postshop, Kiosk, Non
Polling, Other Queries,
Environmental,
Inappropriate Helpdesk and
Security incidents logged on
PowerHelp — dated
17/04/2007
POINQ0086672F
20
FUJO00096658
RMGA Document
Reviewers/Approvers Role
Matrix — dated 19/01/2010
POINQ0102829F
21
FUJ00117290
BSI Assessment Report —
dated 29/05/2007
POINQ0123461F
22
FUJ00002061
Management Information
Service: Service Description
— dated 20/02/2008
POINQ0008232F
23
FUJ00002056
Calculating Mean Time
Between Failure and
Availability — dated
12/09/2007
POINQ0008227F
24
FUJ00002051
Service Level Target and
Liquidated Damages
Exclusions — dated
19/06/2007
POINQ0008222F
25
FUJ00081017
Quarterly Log of PO Branch
Calls to Helpdesk following
moneygram pilot — dated
02/05/2007
POINQ0087 188F
26
FUJ00081046
Spreadsheet Quarterly Log
of Calls from PO Branches
to Helpdesk following
Moneygram Pilot — dated
10/05/2007
POINQ0087217F
27
FUJ00002010
Closure of Associated NBX
Circuits — dated 18/07/2006
POINQ0008181F
28
FUJ00080024
Fujitsu End to End
Reconciliation Reporting
Service Description - V1.0 —
dated 02/02/2007
POINQ0086195F
29
FUJ00080033
Fujitsu/PO AP Client File
Re-Send: Joint Working
POINQ0086204F
Page 19 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
No
URN
Description
Control Number
Document - V1.0 — dated
29/06/2007
30
FUJ00002112
Application Interface
Specification: Horizon to
POL MIS AIS — dated
17/09/2009
POINQ0008283F
31
FUJ00092942
Weekly report- open
problems — dated
09/02/2010
POINQ0099113F
32
FUJ00092943
Corporate Red Alerts,
Amber Alerts, Customer
Complaints — dated
09/02/2010
POINQ00991 14F
33
FUJ00095212
Weekly Report- Open
Problems — dated
13/04/2010
POINQ0101383F
34
FUJ00095213
Weekly Report All Open
Alerts — dated 13/04/2010
POINQ0101384F
35
FUJ00095331
Weekly Report Open
Problems — dated
20/04/2010
POINQ0101502F
36
FUJ00095332
Weekly Report All Open
Alerts — dated 20/04/2010
POINQ0101503F
37
FUJ00095576
Weekly Report of Open
Problems — dated
05/05/2010
POINQ0101747F
38
FUJ00095577
Corporate Red Alerts,
Amber Alerts, Customer
Complaints — dated
05/05/2010
POINQ0101748F
39
FUJ00096845
HNG-X CS Reqs Doors
Assurance Extract — dated
01/01/1900
POINQ0103016F
40
FUJ00084715
Suspended BIMS, Peaks,
HNGx Issues and Incident
Calls — dated 01/01/1900
POINQO090886F
41
FUJ00084717
Register of Suspended
BIMS, HNGx Issues, Calls
with Dev and Risk Register
— dated 06/01/2011
POINQO090888F
42
FUJ00116314
Horizon Capacity Report —
January 2007
POINQ0122485F
43
FUJ00116331
Horizon Capacity Report —
February 2007
POINQ0122502F
Page 20 of 21
WITN06680100
WITN06680100
No URN Description Control Number
FUJ00116357 Horizon Capacity Report — POINQ0122528F
44 March 2007
FUJ00116367 Horizon Capacity Report — POINQ0122538F
45 April 2007
FUJ00116376 Horizon Capacity Report— I POINQ0122547F
46 May 2007
FUJ00116387 Horizon Capacity Report — POINQ0122558F
47 June 2007
FUJ00116405 Horizon Monthly Volumes — I POINQ0122576F
48 July 2007
FUJ00116457 Horizon Capacity Report — POINQ0122628F
49 December 2007
Page 21 of 21