FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Witness Name: William Paul Patterson (on behalf of Fujitsu Services Limited)
Statement No.: Second
Exhibits: FSL_04/1 to FSL_04/640
Dated: 29 December 2022
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND CORPORATE STATEMENT OF FUJITSU SERVICES LIMITED
I, MR. WILLIAM PAUL PATTERSON (known as Paul Patterson), will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
I am a director of Fujitsu Services Limited (“Fujitsu”) and am duly authorised to
make this statement on its behalf. I make this statement in response to the
Inquiry’s Rule 9 Request, dated 17 August 2022, for a corporate statement
addressing issues relevant to Phases 2 and 3 of the Inquiry (the “Request”). I
am informed by Morrison Foerster, the Recognised Legal Representative for
Fujitsu in the Inquiry, that an extension to this deadline has been agreed for the
response to the issues relevant to Phase 3 to 14 October 2022.
On 28 September 2022, Fujitsu provided to the Inquiry a signed corporate
statement addressing the issues relevant to Phase 2, namely Questions 1 — 43
as set out in Appendix 1 to the Request (the “First Corporate Statement”). This
corporate statement deals with the issues relevant to Phase 3, namely Questions
44 —71 as set out in Appendix 1 to the Request.
As noted in the First Corporate Statement, I do not have first-hand knowledge of
many of the matters which are set out in this corporate statement. For this
reason, I wish to reiterate at the outset how the information in this statement has
Page 1 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
been compiled. For the purposes of preparing responses, I have been assisted
by a team of individuals within Fujitsu and Morrison Foerster. This is due to the
vast amount of documentation and sources of evidence which have had to be
reviewed for a time period stretching over 25 years. This team has provided to
me the documents which are referenced in this statement and exhibited at
FSL_04/1 to FSL_04/640, and which are the principal source of my knowledge
of this statement’s contents.
As with the responses in the First Corporate Statement, responses to questions
set out in this statement are generally drawn from documentary sources. These
documents have been exhibited and/or referenced in accordance with the
Inquiry’s Protocol on Witness Statements. The responses provided in this second
corporate statement represent Fujitsu’s current understanding of the information
available. Given that preparations for Phase 3 of the Inquiry are still on-going, it
may be that Fujitsu will need to supplement this corporate statement as further
material is identified and made available to Core Participants.
Also, as noted in the First Corporate Statement, I do not have a detailed technical
knowledge of the Horizon IT System (“Horizon”), and I am reliant upon Fujitsu
staff with relevant technical expertise and knowledge of such matters.
SUPPORT
6.
In the Request, the Inquiry has asked a series of questions relating to the nature
and scope of the support services that ICL Pathway Limited (“ICL Pathway”) and
subsequently Fujitsu (for ease of reference, these entities will be referred to
collectively as Fujitsu for this section of the corporate statement) aimed to provide
in relation to Horizon from the initial pilot to the date of the Request.
Page 2 of 193
10.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
From around 2002, the nature and scope of certain support services provided by
Fujitsu to Post Office and its branches are set out in ‘Service Descriptions’. These
are Contract Controlled Documents (“CCDs”) which were agreed between Post
Office and Fujitsu and make up part of the contractual framework between the
parties. For the purposes of this corporate statement, Fujitsu has focused on
support services provided from the time of the Codified Agreement entered into
between Fujitsu and Post Office Counters Limited on 28 July 1999 (the “Codified
Agreement”) that deal with issues that may have impacted Post Office branches
or were reported to Fujitsu (either directly or indirectly) by postmasters and
summarises how those support services have changed over time.
For ease of reference, in this section of the corporate statement, both Post Office
Limited and Post Office Counters Limited (as Post Office Limited was until known
until August 2001) shall be referred to as “POL”. Fujitsu also notes that for
Service Descriptions relating to HNG-X that are dated in 2006, the dates on
which those Service Descriptions became effective are set out in Change Control
Note (“CCN”) 1200 (FSL_04/1). In the majority of instances, this would have been
at the rollout of HNG-X.
ICL Pathway and Fujitsu have undergone a number of reorganisations
throughout the time period relevant to the Request. These reorganisations may
have occurred at the corporate level, business unit or team level, and at individual
account level, including in relation to the account responsible for the provision of
services to POL.
For these reasons, the names, composition and structure of the services, teams,
units and roles which delivered the support services changed, and there will
Page 3 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
therefore be overlap in the responsibilities and time periods relating to the
support services, teams and roles explained below.
Background
11. As documented in Fujitsu’s “Incident Management Process” (see, for example,
FSL_04/2 and FSL_04/3) and “End to End Application Support Strategy” (see,
for example, FSL_04/4 and FSL_04/5), the framework for Fujitsu’s support
services can be broadly categorised into four levels:
a. First line support, which at various times during the Legacy Horizon
and HNG-X periods has included, (i) the Service Desk Service,
delivered by the Service Desk team (the “Service Desk”), where
issues were reported by postmasters, and (ii) Fujitsu’s own system
monitoring, provided by the Systems Management Service and
delivered by the Systems Management Centre (“SMC”);
b. Second line support, which at various times during the Legacy Horizon
and HNG-X periods has included, (i) the SMC, (ii) the Service Desk,
and (iii) the Software Support Centre team (also known as the System
Support Centre) (the “SSC’).
c. Third line support, as provided by the Third Line Support Service,
which was delivered primarily by the SSC; and
d. Fourth line support, as provided by the Application Support Service
(also known during the Legacy Horizon period as ‘4'" line support’),
which was delivered by Fujitsu’s Application Division teams and, later,
some teams based overseas.
12. An ‘incident’ is defined in the Incident Management Process as “any event which
is not part of the standard operation of a service and which causes, or may cause,
Page 4 of 193
13.
14.
15.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
an interruption to, or a reduction in, the quality of that service.” (FSL_04/2 and
FSL_04/3). Incidents included faults or failures in equipment, software, services
or procedures. The term “problem” is defined in the Customer Service Policy
Manual as being “an adverse situation that is: (a) caused by a defect in the
Specification, design, production, implementation or use of any of the service
components and (b) substantial enough to warrant action to eradicate it. A
problem may be indicated by a trend of incidents” (FSL_04/6 and FSL_04/7).
The majority of the support services described below were provided by units and
teams within the Customer Services team, which later became part of Fujitsu’s
Post Office Account (also known at various times as the Royal Mail Group
Account). The Customer Services team’s responsibilities included the delivery of
services to POL under the terms of the contract between Fujitsu and POL
(FSL_04/8 and FSL_04/9).
Although it is not possible to determine with certainty how many individuals were
involved in each of the services or teams described below at any one time, Fujitsu
has to date identified approximately 5,000 employees and/or contractors who
have worked on Horizon over the life of the Horizon contract.
In addition to the information sharing methods set out in respect of the services
outlined below, information was also shared between different levels of support
team using various shared systems. These systems have included:
a. PowerHelp, a call-handling system used by the Service Desk, which
was linked initially to the PiniCL system described below and was in
use until around 2007;
b. PinICL, the customised incident logging and resolution tracking
system adopted by Fujitsu during the period 1996 to 2003;
Page 5 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Peak, the customised incident logging system designed to replace the
PinlCL system in 2003; and
The Known Error Log (“KEL”), a knowledge management tool used
by Fujitsu to explain how to deal with, or work around, issues that
arose in Horizon.
16. Details relating to the PinICL, Peak and KEL systems were provided to the
17.
18.
Inquiry by Fujitsu in its submissions dated 13 September 2022.
Information was also shared between, by and within support teams through
documentation, training and information-sharing sessions and meetings,
including the following:
a.
team-based review meetings (for example, the Horizon Helpdesk Shift
Review meeting);
local work instructions provided by technical teams to specific support
teams;
the SSC intranet site;
workshops and knowledge transfer sessions (for example, relating to
technical aspects of Horizon and diagnostic techniques); and
internal newsletters and bulletins, including Brief EnCounters and
HSD Voice (see, for example, FSL_04/10 to FSL_04/13).
There were processes for requesting additional resources which line managers
would have followed. This included the Recruitment Authorisation process. Line
managers would create a Recruitment Authorisation Requirement (“RAR’),
which described the role and skills required. An example of a RAR is included at
FSL_04/14. An example of ICL Pathway’s Resourcing Procedure dated 22 June
2000 is included at FSL_04/15.
Page 6 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
19. With regards to the performance of individual team members, between 1993 and
2012, Fujitsu operated a system known as Performance Plus to manage
individual employee performance. This system was renamed Performance First
in 2012 and began incorporating a moderation process in which performance
ratings were applied (FSL_04/16). In general, the process included completion
of a personal objectives form, a personal development plan, a performance
review form, and a pre-appraisal preparation and self-assessment form
(FSL_04/17). Following a performance appraisal exercise, a performance rating
was agreed and, in some cases, it is understood that this could have impacted a
relevant employee’s remuneration.
20. To assess the performance of a team, Fujitsu generally undertook Organisation
and Management Reviews (an “OMR”) during the period. OMRs were an
assessment of a team’s ‘people capability’ against strategic objectives. The OMR
took place at each level of the organisation where there was a formal business
review. Further details of the process are set out in FSL_04/18.
21. Fujitsu understands that training for support service teams was provided on an
ad hoc team-by-team basis and no central register of training was maintained
(FSL_04/19). An example of the induction handbook for individuals working on
the Post Office Account team can be found at FSL_04/20. Further detail in
relation to training provided in respect of certain of the support service teams is
set out below.
Service Management Service
Legacy Horizon
22. The primary aims of the Service Management Service (“SMS”) were to monitor,
manage and maintain the delivery of operational services and to report on these
Page 7 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
matters to the Service Management Forum (which was also known as the
Horizon Service Review Forum) (“Service Management Forum”) (FSL_04/21).
The key components of the SMS including the following operational services
(FSL_04/22):
a.
b.
e.
f.
the Service Desk Service;
Management Information Service;
Reconciliation Service;
Systems Management Service;
Third Line Support Service; and
Engineering Service.
Each of these operational services are discussed below in this statement.
23. The SMS was governed by the procedures defined in Schedule 4 of the Codified
Agreement (FSL_04/22), as varied from time to time, which included:
a.
b.
Service organisation;
Service Management Forum;
The introduction of releases (“Release Introduction’);
Management of problems and complaints; and
Measurement and management of customer satisfaction
(FSL_04/21)
Service organisation
24. The service description sets out key roles within Fujitsu and POL associated with
the SMS (FSL_04/21):
a.
Eujitsu Customer Service Director, responsible for all aspects of the
delivery of the operational services.
Page 8 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Fujitsu_Infrastructure Service Manager, responsible for delivery of
support services to branches, management information and the
reporting of service levels. The Infrastructure Service Manager was
specifically responsible for the provision of monthly service reports.
Fujitsu Operations and Support Manager, responsible for the delivery
of services relating to data delivery and support.
Fujitsu_Security Manager, responsible for the Security Management
Service.
Fujitsu_Service Introduction Manager, responsible for planning and
managing the implementation of releases, which included planning
and managing the implementation phase of all releases and keeping
POL informed as to the content and progress of all releases. The
Service Introduction Manager was supported by a team (the “Service
Introduction Team”). The prime functional units of the Service
Introduction Team are set out in the Customer Service Operations
Manual (“CS Operations Manual”) (see, for example, FSL_04/23 and
FSL_04/24).
POL Head of Network Support, responsible for the business that the
operational services supported.
POL Supplier & Service Performance Manager, responsible for liaison
with Fujitsu in relation to the overall performance of operational
services. This included monitoring delivered service levels, and
receiving and analysing Fujitsu’s monthly service reports.
POL Service Operations Manager, responsible for liaison with Fujitsu
concerning issues and problems that occurred in the live estate.
Page 9 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
i. POL Information Security Manager, responsible for various security-
related matters, including establishing certain security policies.
Service Management Forum
25. Since at least the date of the Codified Agreement, there has been a contractual
obligation for the parties to hold monthly service review meetings to provide a
regular opportunity for POL and Fujitsu to meet and discuss the overall
performance of services and systems in the live environment (Annex to Schedule
A4, FSL_04/25). Generally, these meetings were called Service Management
Reviews and were held between the Fujitsu’s Customer Service Director and
POL’s Head of Network Support to review performance against Service Level
Targets (“SLTs”), and issues and problems that had been escalated to the
Service Management Forum (FSL_04/21). Service review meetings (“Service
Reviews") were aided by a summary of the service performance statistics for the
month under review. Service Reviews later became known as “Service Review
Books”. The content and format of the Service Review Books changed over time.
Fujitsu has disclosed to the Inquiry all Service Reviews and Service Review
Books identified during the course of its review. These Service Reviews / Service
Review Books recorded, for example, the volume of calls received by the Service
Desk and the part of the system those calls related to.
Release Introduction
26.
27.
Another component of the SMS was ‘Release Introduction’. Initially, this service
was carried out in accordance with the CCD entitled “Pathway Release Policy”
(‘Release Policy”) (see, for example, FSL_04/26 and FSL_04/27).
A release is “a documented collection of software and/or data provided by Fujitsu
to deliver a service”. During the Legacy Horizon and HNG-X periods, releases
Page 10 of 193
28.
29.
30.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
were classified as either software releases or reference data releases, and
supported changes of POL’s service delivery in order to implement a business
change (FSL_04/26).
Releases were subject to change control procedures described in the Codified
Agreement (see, for example, FSL_04/25). The change control procedures also
contained ‘emergency procedures’, which allowed Fujitsu to proceed with any
change it considered necessary for it to comply with its contractual obligations if
there was insufficient time to comply with standard procedures, provided Fujitsu
gave POL a CCN for retrospective change as soon as practicable (FSL_04/26).
Separately, the Release Policy made provision for ‘maintenance releases’, which
were a type of software release. Maintenance releases were releases of new
software and data to remove faults or to improve service levels without changing
business functionality or business data. From July 1999, the Release Policy
described three categories of maintenance releases:
a. Performance / capacity improvements, where a CCN was required;
b. Scheduled releases containing fault fixes and small functional
changes, where a CCN was required; and
c. Urgent fault fixes, where no CCN was required.
Maintenance releases ranged in scope from minor releases to major releases.
Minor maintenance releases were solely concerned with rectifying faults reported
to Fujitsu through “the incident and problem management processes that
resulted in no associated changes to designed system functionality, process,
procedure, training or documentation”. Such releases were to be applied to the
system as soon as they were authorised by Fujitsu, and POL was to be notified
by entries made in the ‘Online Problem Management Database’. Such releases
Page 11 of 193
31.
32.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
were also notified during Service Management Forum meetings and documented
in the Service Review Book (FSL_04/26).
The procedures for authorising changes to Horizon’s live estate were described
in the CS Support Services Operations Manual (FSL_04/28). The procedures
included a weekly Release Management Forum to decide which fixes should be
created and to assess the impact of any associated risk (see, for example,
FSL_04/28).
The Release Policy was changed over time, including changes to the definitions
of releases, and the teams and processes relating to the authorisation of
releases, which are set out in FSL_04/27.
Management of problems and complaints
33.
Fujitsu was to provide a single point of contact for any operational or service-
related issues and had overall responsibility for the integrity of the problem and
complaint management process, and liaison with POL and individual service
managers who managed individual problems (FSL_04/21).
Measurement and management of customer satisfaction
34.
Fujitsu and POL were to measure satisfaction at regular intervals using a
scorecard system. Fujitsu was also to report on progress against any service
improvement plans within the Service Review Book (FSL_04/21).
HNG-X
35.
36.
Generally, the SMS continued to perform the same functions and responsibilities
after HNG-X was introduced in 2010 (FSL_04/29).
In August 2014, after Fujitsu’s first line support function was transferred to Atos
as part of POL’s towers strategy, the Major Account Controllers team (“MAC
Team”) was added to the SMS. The MAC Team's responsibilities included, (i)
Page 12 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
providing a single point of contact for Atos enquiries and escalations, (ii) being a
resolution contact point for branch logged software incidents and customer
complaint handling, and (iii) trend reporting (FSL_04/30).
Service Desk Service
37.
38.
The Service Desk, which was also known at various times as the Horizon
Systems Helpdesk (HSH) or Horizon Service Desk (HSD), provided first line
support to Post Office branches and other designated groups through the
provision of a support desk function, which included end to end incident
management (FSL_04/31 to FSL_04/33). Postmasters reporting issues with
Horizon counter equipment or software contacted the Service Desk and an
incident would be logged (FSL_04/31 to FSL_04/33). The Service Desk acted as
an initiator within the problem management process due to its ability to monitor
incident trends against the severity received (FSL_04/33).
The Service Desk resolved calls relating to various types of incidents, including
those concerning counter hardware, software and network issues. Further detail
in relation to the service provided by the Service Desk is set out in the following
documents:
a. Before December 2002: the POCL Infrastructure Service Definition
(see, for example, FSL_04/31);
b. From December 2002 to October 2006: the Service Description for
the Horizon Systems Helpdesk (FSL_04/32); and
c. From October 2006 to June 2014: the “Service Desk Joint Working
Document” (“Working Document”) (see, for example, FSL_04/34)
(FSL_04/35).
Page 13 of 193
39.
40.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
In late 2002 to early 2003, the Network Business Support Centre (the “NBSC”)
took over responsibility from the Service Desk for calls requiring advice or
guidance in the Horizon system, and from November to December 2002, the
Fujitsu Service Desk only handled Horizon system-related incidents (for
example, incidents relating to hardware or software) (FSL_04/36). In 2014, as
noted above, Fujitsu’s first line support function was transferred to Atos
(FSL_04/37).
During the time it was in place, the Service Desk managed the resolution of
incidents using processes defined in the relevant incident management process
(see, for example, FSL_04/3 and FSL_04/38).
Accessing the Service Desk
41.
42.
To access the Service Desk in the period September 1996 to approximately
September 2001, branches used a direct telephone number. There was a
separate telephone number for contacting POL (FSL_04/36 and FSL_04/39).
From around September 2001 onwards, branches contacted the Service Desk
by telephoning a ‘Single Point of Contact’ telephone number and following the
interactive voice recording to select the Service Desk (FSL_04/31 to FSL_04/33).
This telephone number was managed and controlled by POL.
If the Service Desk was contacted, a Service Desk agent would answer the call,
obtain details from the caller concerning the reported issues and record these
details (including the call classification or ‘call type’ and severity) (FSL_04/31 to
FSL_04/33). The Service Desk agent would then refer to the knowledge-base
and undertake basic diagnostics in an effort to resolve the incident. If resolved,
the Service Desk agent would ‘close’ the incident with the agreement of the
Page 14 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
caller. If the fault remained unresolved at the end of the call, the Service Desk
agent would escalate the incident (FSL_04/31 to FSL_04/33).
43. The Service Desk’s hours of operation changed over time:
a.
Before December 2002: the Service Desk was to be provided from
8.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Saturday, excluding Bank Holidays and
Christmas Day. A ‘skeleton’ Service Desk was also to be provided
between 5.00am and 8.00am and between 8.00pm and 12.00am
Monday to Saturday, and between 7.00am and 10.00pm on Sundays
excluding Christmas Day (FSL_04/25);
From December 2002 to October 2008: the Service Desk was
available from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday excluding
Christmas Day (FSL_04/32);
From October 2008 to April 2013: the Service Desk was available from
8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and 8.00am to 2.00pm on
Saturday excluding Christmas Day (FSL_04/40); and
From April 2013 to June 2014: the Service Desk was available from
7.00am to 11.00pm Monday to Friday, 8.00am to 11.00pm on
Saturday, and 8.00am to 5.00pm on Sunday and Bank Holidays
excluding Christmas Day (FSL_04/33 and FSL_04/41).
44. Outside of these hours, the Service Desk provided a voicemail service. Any
voicemail messages left by branches were to be retrieved and processed by the
Service Desk from 8.00am on the following working day (FSL_04/32 and
FSL_04/33).
Page 15 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The Wednesday Peak
45.
The issue of the ‘Wednesday Peak’ was referred to in the First Corporate
Statement at paragraph 144. Monthly Progress Reports for May 1999
(FSL_04/42) and June 1999 (FSL_04/43) noted that Customer Satisfaction was
low due to the responsiveness of the Service Desk to the Wednesday Peak. As
a result, support on Wednesdays and Thursdays was increased by introducing
an ‘expert domains’ function on the Service Desk staffed by Fujitsu, Peritas
Limited (“Peritas”) and POL employees (further detail in relation to the role of
Peritas is set out in the Training section below).
Training to the Service Desk
46.
47.
48.
Service Desk staff were to be trained in the use of the Horizon system
(FSL_04/44). According to the 1997 Horizon Systems Helpdesk Operations
Manual, training plans would be created and maintained for Service Desk staff.
It was the responsibility of the HSH Manager to design and implement a suitable
induction and training programme for new staff joining the Service Desk
(FSL_04/45). Fujitsu has identified various Service Desk newsletters which
referred to training opportunities for Service Desk staff (see, for example,
FSL_04/46 and FSL_04/47).
Performance was managed and monitored through SLTs, which included the
time taken to answer and resolve certain types of call and the retrieval of
voicemail messages (FSL_04/32).
From October 2006 to June 2014, performance was managed through both SLTs
and Operational Level Targets (“OLTs”), which included the Service Desk’s
response time to customer complaints (FSL_04/33). OLTs only applied within the
hours of 9.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday excluding Bank Holidays
Page 16 of 193
49.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
(FSL_04/33 and FSL_04/35). The Service Desk was to use reasonable
endeavours to supply daily performance statistics by midday on the next working
day (FSL_04/33).
During the same period, Fujitsu was to monitor the quality of the Service Desk to
ensure it met POL’s specifications as documented within the Working Document
(FSL_04/34). The monitoring could include recording calls, where reasonably
practicable, for the purposes of monitoring call control, customer satisfaction,
knowledge and system use. POL was to agree the method and timescale with
Fujitsu, and POL reserved the right to audit the quality scoring.
Systems Management Service
Legacy Horizon
50.
51.
52.
The Systems Management Service was provided by the SMC. The Service
Descriptions for the Systems Management Service in the context of Legacy
Horizon were initially set out in the Codified Agreement (see, for example,
FSL_04/31) and later in a Service Description dated 18 December 2002
(FSL_04/48), which was withdrawn in January 2010 (FSL_04/49). Before the
withdrawal, the primary elements of the service were:
a. anevent management service; and
b. a software distribution service, allowing new and updated software to
be deployed and remotely installed across the network.
The Service Description explains events as “indications of conditions that have
operational significance. They include software, hardware or security conditions
that may require investigation and also include occurrences of events such as
low battery in PIN Pads.”
In addition to these services, the Systems Management Service included:
Page 17 of 193
53.
54.
55.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
a. Software repository management;
b. Asset management, including maintenance of an asset register;
c. Configuration management;
d. Support for other services, including the Engineer Service;
e. Business continuity testing; and
f. I Atime synchronisation service.
The Systems Management Service was for Fujitsu’s internal use only and was
available 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
SMC staff were to be “appropriately trained”. It was the responsibility of the SMC
Team Leader to ensure training plans were created and maintained for each
member of staff and that “the required training outlined in their individual plans”
was received (FSL_04/50).
Examples of the types of training that SMC teams would attend can be found at
FSL_04/51 and FSL_04/52. In November 2002, a review of the SMC Training
Strategy highlighted improvements to be made going forward, based on
feedback from SMC staff (FSL_04/53 and FSL_04/54).
HNG-X
56.
57.
Like the Systems Management Service in Legacy Horizon, the primary services
for HNG-X also comprised an event management service and a software
distribution service. The Systems Management Service also provided a system
monitoring service (FSL_04/55 to FSL_04/60).
The relevant Service Descriptions noted that the SMC was a first line support
team that also had responsibilities to provide certain second line support
functions (FSL_04/5).
Page 18 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
58. Although the event management and software distribution services remained
broadly the same, the Service Descriptions provided that all new platforms in
HNG-X would have the appropriate level of performance monitoring software
installed.
59. Once a system or network condition had been identified, the Systems
Management Service was expected to raise an appropriate incident either via
the Service Desk or through Fujitsu’s incident management systems. The
Systems Management Service would also provide service reporting for
distribution to POL.
60. From April 2014, activity relating to POL systems Credence and POLSAP were
excluded from the Systems Management Service and moved to separate
services (FSL_04/58).
61. Similarly to Legacy Horizon, the Systems Management Service for HNG-X was
for Fujitsu’s internal use only and was available 24 hours a day, every day of the
year.
Reconciliation Service
62. The Inquiry has asked Fujitsu to provide information in relation to the “Business
Support Section” and the Management Support Unit (“MSU”). Fujitsu has been
unable to identify documents relating to a Business Support Section; however,
Fujitsu has identified documents relating to the Business Support Unit. Details in
relation to the Business Support Unit (“BSU”) are set out below.
Legacy Horizon
63. The BSU Incident Reconciliation Procedures for Release NR2 dated November
1998 explain that the BSU was responsible for ensuring that all APS transactions
which occurred at a branch counter reached the intended clients (for example,
Page 19 of 193
64.
65.
66.
67.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
that payment of a customer's gas bill reached the system of the relevant energy
company) (FSL_04/61). The procedures explain that details of these transactions
had to pass through a number of system boundaries which may have caused
rejections (or non-deliveries) and it was the BSU that would progress those
transactions. At that time, the BSU was then said to have generated various
reconciliation reports, some of which were internal and some of which were
provided to POL.
The APS Reconciliation Report Delivery Process from August 1999 then explains
that the BSU was disbanded following the withdrawal of the Benefits Agency from
the Pathway Project and the MSU was formed (FSL_04/62).
Since at least September 1999, the MSU has supported operation in areas
including:
a. Management information systems;
b. Information technology equipment;
c. EPOSS and APS transaction reconciliation, including working with the
Customer Service Problem Manager to resolve reconciliation
problems; and
d. Performance benchmarking.
Further detail in relation to the role of the MSU in the context of Legacy Horizon
is set out in the Customer Services Infrastructure Operations Manual (FSL_04/63
and FSL_04/64).
Both the BSU and MSU formed part of Fujitsu’s Reconciliation Service during the
time of Legacy Horizon. With the introduction of Network Banking, Fujitsu
understands that reconciliation occurred at two levels:
Page 20 of 193
68.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
a. The counter reconciling with the “client” (in the context of Network
Banking, this would have been the bank to which payment is being
made); and
b. The counter reconciling with POL’s own central systems,
(see, for example, FSL_04/65 to FSL_04/67).
During this time, the Reconciliation Service generated and circulated a number
of reconciliation reports, including those described in the following documents:
a. TPS Reconciliation and Incident Management Procedures dating from
December 2002 to October 2005 (FSL_04/68 to FSL_04/71); and
b. Network Banking Reconciliation and Incident Management
Procedures, as referenced above, was amended in May 2005 to
capture all “On Line Services”. At the time, these services included
banking transactions, debit and credit card transactions and electronic
top-up transactions (FSL_04/72).
HNG-X
69.
70.
The Reconciliation Service continued during HNG-X. Examples of Service
Descriptions during this time are at FSL_04/73 to FSL_04/76.
Fujitsu understands that a number of reports were given to POL containing
statements of reconciliation across agreed boundary points. Details of these
reports are set out in the End-to-End Reconciliation Reporting Service
Description (FSL_04/77 to FSL_04/80). Transactions that Fujitsu could not
reconcile were referred to as “Exceptions”, which were also to be identified and
reported to POL, and addressed by the Reconciliation Service (see
Reconciliation and Incident Management, Joint Working Document: FSL_04/81
and FSL_04/82).
Page 21 of 193
71.
72.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The Reconciliation Service was available 9.00am to 5.30pm Mondays to Fridays,
excluding Bank Holidays. Although it is noted that the process of reconciliation is
provided on an on-going and automated basis.
SLTs and OLTs for the Reconciliation Service are set out in the Service
Descriptions.
Business and System Incidents
73.
74.
75.
In the context of reconciliation and incident management, a ‘Business Incident’
is defined in the relevant Service Descriptions as a “‘symptom’ of an underlying
cause — e.g., the effect of the system fault on the resulting reconciliation or
settlement information sent to Post Office.” A ‘System Incident’ is then defined
as the underlying ‘cause’ of a Business Incident.
Business Incidents could be raised by:
a. The Fujitsu Reconciliation Service;
b. POL; or
c. The Third Line Support Service (as discussed in more detail below).
Business Incident Management System (“BIMS”) reports were raised to log
Business Incidents. A BIMS report was designed to report the progress of a
Business Incident to resolution.
Third Line Software Support Service
76.
The Third Line Software Support Service provided third line application support
functions and technical support. From the time of the Initial Go Live of Legacy
Horizon, this role was undertaken by the European Development and Support
Centre ("EDSC") (FSL_04/83). The service was later delivered by the SSC
(FSL_04/5).
Page 22 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
77. The technical support provided by the Third Line Support Service included
(FSL_04/84 and FSL_04/85):
a. Investigating and resolving new software incidents within the POL
branch infrastructure escalated from the Service Desk or SMC. It
provided software fixes, as required, to branches, counters and/or
data centres. Ownership and management of the incident remained
with the Service Desk that logged the incident;
b. Producing and authorising workarounds and updates to entries within
the KEL database; and
c. Receiving solutions developed by the Application Support Service to
resolve incidents.
78. According to an Operational Level Agreement dated June 2003, one of the roles
of the SSC was to hold “workshops and skills transfer sessions relating to
technical aspects of the Pathway solution and diagnostic techniques” for Service
Desk staff (FSL_04/86). For examples of these sessions, see FSL_04/87 and
FSL_04/88.
79. The Third Line Support Service was intended to be for Fujitsu's internal use and
was not generally directly available to POL or postmasters. It was available 24
hours per day but provided only on an on-call basis outside of 9.00am to 5.30pm
Monday to Friday and Bank Holidays (FSL_04/84 and FSL_04/85).
Application Support Service (Fourth Line Support)
80. Prior to August 2006 and in relation to Legacy Horizon, the Incident Management
Processes (see, for example, FSL_04/2) and “End to End Application Support
Strategy” set out the role of fourth line support (see, for example, FSL_04/4).
Page 23 of 193
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
In relation to HNG-X, the service description for the Application Support Service,
or Fourth Line Support Service, (the “Application Support Service’) was initially
produced in August 2006 (FSL_04/89), and included the following areas of
support:
a. Application support in the context of software fixes; and
b. I The investigation and resolution of new software incidents which could
not otherwise be resolved by the Third Line Support Service.
The Application Support Service was delivered by Fujitsu’s Application Division
teams and, later, by certain overseas teams (FSL_04/5, FSL_04/90 and
FSL_04/91).
From at least October 2010, the Application Support Service also provided
support in respect of the POLSAP application, details of which were set out in
the POLSAP Hosting Service: Joint Working Document (FSL_04/92 to
FSL_04/94)
The “Operational Level Agreement for 4'" Line Support of HNGX” (FSL_04/95
and FSL_04/96) describes the obligations of the Application Support Service and
the Third Line Support Service. These obligations include (but are not limited to)
the Third Line Support Service ensuring:
a. All calls passed to the Application Support Service are logged in the
call management system (Peak);
b. All problems where a resolution is already known by the support
community are filtered out; and
c. Calls are escalated in a timely manner.
Obligations owed by the Application Support Service to the Third Line Support
Service include ensuring that resolution information recorded in the relevant
Page 24 of 193
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
systems and that information and training relating to new releases is provided
(FSL_04/86).
If the Application Support Service determined that a software incident resulted
from a “known error”, this was to be communicated to the Third Line Support
Service. The relevant KEL record would then be identified and updated
appropriately, and information would be disseminated to the Service Desk for
use in relation to other similar incidents.
The Application Support Service also provided support by ensuring that Fujitsu's
Third Line Support Service was made aware of the symptoms that generated the
incident and would document that information so that it could also be made
available to both the Service Desk and the Systems Management Service. Any
resolutions or workarounds that were returned to the Third Line Support Service
would have been tested and authorised in accordance with the agreed release
authorisation process (FSL_04/97).
In addition to incident resolution, the Application Support Service also provided
the Third Line Support Service with documentation relating to new Releases so
that the Third Line Support Service could become familiar with any new products
or services before they were released in the live environment.
From September 2013, the Application Support Service was also required to
undertake the following on an annual basis (FSL_04/98):
a. Deliver secure coding training;
b. I Maintain the secure guidelines; and
c. Maintain the secure coding template.
There were no specific SLTs that applied to the service (FSL_04/89).
Page 25 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Engineering Service
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
The Engineer or Engineering Service (“Engineering Service”) comprised an on-
site replacement or repair service, for Horizon equipment at Post Office branches
and other designated locations, together with associated support and
administrative functions (for example, training centres and the NBSC)
(FSL_04/99 and FSL_04/100). Associated support and administrative functions
included tracking hardware assets, Local Area Network (“LAN”) support and
Portable Appliance Testing (“PAT”) (FSL_04/99 and FSL_04/100).
The Engineering Service was provided by support engineers, who were Fujitsu
employees or third-party subcontractors appointed by Fujitsu (“Support
Engineers”) (FSL_04/99 and FSL_04/100).
To access the on-site replacement or repair service, Post Office branches would
report equipment and hardware faults to the Service Desk. Initially the Service
Desk would attempt to diagnose and resolve the reported faults. If the fault could
not be resolved and service restored to the branch, the Service Desk would
arrange a Support Engineer to attend the branch to resolve the issue (FSL_04/99
and FSL_04/100).
Originally, the Engineering Service was available from 8.00am to 6.30pm
Monday to Friday excluding all Bank Holidays (FSL_04/99). Then from
approximately August 2013, the Engineering Service was available from 8.00am
to 8.00pm Monday to Friday, and 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays excluding all
Bank Holidays (FSL_04/99 and FSL_04/100).
The associated support and administrative functions noted above were provided
by Fujitsu to Post Office branches and POL on an ongoing basis (FSL_04/99 and
FSL_04/100).
Page 26 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
96. The Engineering Service was primarily responsible for SLTs which related to the
level of service that POL required from Fujitsu (FSL_04/99 and FSL_04/100).
The primary SLT for the Engineering Service concerned the time taken to resolve
incidents (FSL_04/100).
Management Information Service
97. The primary aim of the Management Information Service (“MIS”) was to provide
POL with performance reporting and management information relating to Horizon
services (FSL_04/101).
Legacy Horizon
98. The requirement for a MIS service was initially set out in Schedule E01 of the
Codified Agreement (FSL_04/25). According to the MIS Service Description
dated 20 December 2002 (FSL_04/101), during Legacy Horizon, the main
elements of the MIS were to deliver to POL:
a. The monthly Service Review Book, which contained various
information including a management summary of highlights from the
previous month's service delivery, a high-level review of each supplied
service, service volumetric data, and a high-level review of problem
management and cross domain problem statuses (amongst other
things);
b. Management information, including Network Banking management
information, Order Book Control Service and Automated Payment
Service client transaction management information, and capacity
management information;
c. Support on Miscellaneous Data Queries from POL; and
Page 27 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
d. Support in relation to the calculation of liquidated damages that may
have been owed to POL from Fujitsu as a result of not achieving
particular service levels under service level agreements.
HNG-X
99.
The MIS continued following the introduction of HNG-X (see, for example,
(FSL_04/102), with certain changes, including (i) the delivery of a monthly
Summary Service Overview until around November 2013, and (ii) a Transaction
Time Benchmarking Service.
Additional Support Functions
100. In addition to the services described above, the Inquiry has also asked that
Fujitsu provide some further information in relation to a number of other roles,
fora and teams. To the extent these additional support functions are not
addressed above, explanations are set out below.
Customer Service Problem Manager / Problem Manager
101. The role of Problem Manager was introduced in at least May 1998 to manage
and co-ordinate the resolution of problems (FSL_04/103) by allocating to the
individual most capable of handling the particular problem raised. Where
appropriate, the role was to be performed by the service manager of the relevant
service. For example, for at least the period 1998 to 2002, where financial
reconciliation exceptions occurred more than once, a “Problem Incident” was
reported to a Customer Service Problem Manager after the relevant support unit
had dealt with the financial reconciliation itself. Details in relation to the resolution
of financial reconciliation problems during this time are set out in the “Customer
Services Infrastructure Services Operations Manual” (see, for example,
FSL_04/63, FSL_04/64, FSL_04/104 and FSL_04/105).
Page 28 of 193
102.
103.
104.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The duties of the Problem Manager included developing a resolution plan,
logging the problem on the problem database and keeping the database (and
any parties involved in the resolution plan) updated, monitoring progress and
then closing problems once all relevant parties agreed that the problem has been
resolved.
Problem Managers were a means of liaison between the Service Management
teams of Fujitsu and POL, and different processes and procedures were followed
depending on the nature and impact of the problem (FSL_04/106).
Further detail in relation to the role of Problem Managers and the procedures
followed are set out in the “Customer Service Problem Management Process”
exhibited to this statement (FSL_04/107 to FSL_04/115).
Field Service Management
105.
106.
Fujitsu’s Field Service Management (“FSM”) team was operational during the
Legacy Horizon period following the national rollout. Based on a draft “ICL
Pathway Field Service Manager — Role Definition and Overview” dated 13
September 2000, the role of the FSM team was intended to encompass both
Problem Management and participation in the Management Care Visit
Programme. The FSM team was intended to be responsible for the proactive
identification and management of system problems that affected individual Post
Office branches. Root causes to problems were to be identified, and mitigating
actions applied (FSL_04/116). An example of a RAR for a Field Service Manager
role is at FSL_04/117.
The FSM team was field-based and spread geographically across the UK. Each
Field Service Manager was responsible for an area of the UK. The role operated
within the overall framework of the Customer Service Problem Management
Page 29 of 193
Process,
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
the End-to End Customer Complaint Process, and the ICL
Pathway/POCL Problem Management Interface Agreement (FSL_04/116).
107. In relation to Problem Management, the FSM had responsibility for:
a.
Identification of “Problem Offices”: The FSM team was to proactively
seek to identify offices displaying indications of Fujitsu related
problems, through reference to various sources of information
(FSL_04/116). These sources included: (i) an analysis of HSH call
logs on a weekly or monthly basis, (ii) appointment as a Problem
Manager within the Customer Services team, or (iii) referral of site-
specific complaints by the Customer Services Strategic Services team
under the End-to-End Customer Complaint Process (FSL_04/116).
Communication of Problem Offices to Post Office Network (“PON”)
Business Service Management (“BSM”): Each week, the FSM team
was intended to pass to the PON BSM a consolidated list of branches
which had been identified as having potential problems, and which a
Field Service Manager would wish to visit in order to assist with
assessing the problem and identifying the appropriate course of
action. PON BSM would then, following certain internal POL
processes, contact the relevant outlets and advise them that an ICL
Pathway Field Service Manager would be contacting them to arrange
a visit (FSL_04/116).
Visits to branches: During a branch visit, the Field Service Manager
was to, amongst other things, seek to identify any potential external
influences that could give rise to the system problems, and gather all
information relating to the circumstances under which the problems
Page 30 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
arise (FSL_04/116). Following the site visit, the FSM would produce
an Action Plan to progress any Fujitsu related issues. Details of this
action plan would be entered on the Problem Management Database
and updated as resolution is progressed (FSL_04/116).
108. It was intended that the FSM team would participate in the Management Care
Visit Programme (FSL_04/116). Further details of the Management Care Visit
Programme are provided below.
109. As noted above, the FSM team interacted with other ICL Pathway teams and
processes in discharging their role. These interactions are set out
diagrammatically in (FSL_04/118).
Client Interface Management
110. The Client Interface Management was a unit responsible for the introduction and
ongoing management of services relating to client interfaces, such as HAPS,
APS clients, LFS and TIP. Further details of this unit are contained in the
Operations Manuals for the Customer Services Directorate dating from
November 2001 to May 2002 (FSL_04/23, FSL_04/24 and FSL_04/119).
Operations Service Unit
111. From at least January 2001, the Operations Services Unit was responsible for
the following tasks, amongst others:
a. Providing a Duty Manager who was the single point of contact for live
service issues, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day;
b. Problem management, which entailed unit staff taking on the role of
problem manager where appropriate;
c. Business continuity services;
Page 31 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
d. Supplier management, specifically monitoring and reviewing supplier
and service performance on a daily, weekly and monthly basis;
e. Change management;
f. Operations support, which provided administrative support for the
Change, Duty and Problem Management processes;
g. Reference data management (which appears to have ceased in
November 2001); and
h. Application service management (which appears to have ceased in
November 2001).
(see “CS Operations Services Operations Manual” dated 24 January 2001:
FSL_04/23 and FSL_04/120)
112. Subsequently, Operations Support became responsible for managing other
services including the non-polling report (including analysing and investigating
non-polling incidents), managing electronic signatures for operational system
changes and managing security passes for Fujitsu staff visiting Post Office
branches (FSL_04/23).
Strategic Services Unit
113. Further details of the Strategic Services Unit (“SSU”) are set out in the Customer
Service Infrastructure Services Operations Manual. This provided, amongst
other things, that the SSU was responsible for ensuring that Horizon systems
being operated within Post Office branches were properly implemented and
remained useable for the postmaster (and NBSC) when conducting everyday
business. It was also responsible for ensuring a high level of customer
satisfaction (FSL_04/105). The SSU also had responsibility for processes,
including in relation to customer satisfaction and managing monitored feedback
Page 32 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
on service delivery from the Service Visit Reply (or “SVR”) process (FSL_04/23).
The SSU would review feedback on Reply Cards left at the Post Office branch
following an engineer's visit that allowed a postmaster to comment on the quality
of the service provided by the engineer during their visit, and on the service
provided by the Service Desk.
Outlet Business Change Team
114. During the Legacy Horizon and HNG-X periods, the Outlet Business Change
(later known as Operational Business Change) (“OBC”) service, supported
operational business changes within the POL’s branch network (see, for
example, FSL_04/121 and FSL_04/122).
115. The service was primarily concerned with delivering physical and configuration
changes to the Horizon counter at Post Office branches when requested by POL,
including the following:
a. _ the supply of Horizon equipment;
b. the installation and removal of Horizon equipment (for example,
branch counters/terminals); and
c. moving Horizon equipment within and between outlets.
116. The OBC service was delivered by the OBC team, and the service was provided
in planned, unplanned or emergency circumstances, including the opening or
closure of a Post Office branch (FSL_04/24, FSL_04/121 and FSL_04/122).
117. To access the service, POL would submit a change order to Fujitsu (also known
as an OBC Branch Change work order request). The performance of the OBC
service was measured against SLTs and OLTs.
Page 33 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
TRAINING
118.
119.
Fujitsu has been asked by the Inquiry to provide details relating to the training
programme that was offered in respect of the Horizon system to non-ICL
Pathway/Fujitsu employees.
As set out in more detail below, most, if not all, of the training provided to
postmasters by Fujitsu took place before and during the national rollout, when
the Fujitsu entity responsible for management of the Horizon contract was ICL
Pathway. Accordingly, in this section of the corporate statement, references to
both ICL Pathway and Fujitsu shall be used to reflect which entity was
responsible for management of the Horizon contract at the relevant time.
Training Programme Requirements
120.
121.
ICL Pathway’s proposed approach to the training programme for the
implementation of the Horizon system was initially submitted as part of the
contractual solution during the tender process for the Pathway Programme.
The provision of training was included in the services to be provided by ICL
Pathway under the Related Agreements in 1996. The contractual requirements
for the training programme were later set out in the Codified Agreement.
Requirements 531-534 and Requirement 915 of Schedule A15 of the Codified
Agreement stipulated that:
a. by Requirement 531, training was to be provided “to enable POCL’s
target audience to achieve acceptable standards in key competencies
as defined by POCL”. The ‘target audience’ included counter users,
managers, trainers, auditors and certain non-user groups, “i.e. retail
network managers, regional helpline staff, and account teams in
business centres’;
Page 34 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
b. by Requirement 534, training was to take account of users’ experience
of automated products and their differing abilities to learn. The training
requirements for different groups was to be agreed between ICL
Pathway and POL; and
c. by Requirement 915, training should “enable POCL’s staff or Agents to
achieve acceptable standards in key competencies in the use of the
POCL Services” and “incorporate the development design and delivery
of agreed training events and support materials”.
122. The key measurables of the training service set out in Requirement 915 included
that:
a. “training shall not be delivered more than five (5) POCL Core Days
before” the Horizon system went ‘live’ in the relevant branch;
b. “training shall have received a positive rating of not less than 95% as a
result of a training measurement questionnaire”;
c. the training services should “ensure that 95% of trainees on completion
of the training shall be able to demonstrate achievement of the agreed
level of competence, which shall reflect a score of 90% for knowledge
related areas for transactions and the operating platform’; and
d. competence levels “shall be measured...to second level of the
Kirkpatrick model’. Fujitsu understands the Kirkpatrick model is a
globally recognised method of evaluating the results of training and
learning programs.
123. By Reference 915 of Schedule A16 of the Codified Agreement:
Page 35 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
a. ICL Pathway was to provide a maximum of 12,600 training courses,
broken down into 5,504 Counter Assistants Courses lasting one day (the
“Counter Assistants Course”), 7,004 Managers Courses lasting one
and a half days (the “Counter Managers Course”), 25 ‘Train the Trainer’
courses, 34 Auditor courses and 33 POL helpline courses. The intended
audience and specification for these courses is set out in more detail
below.
b. Following national rollout “all outstanding or ongoing training will be the
responsibility of POCL”, including update training for new software
releases or the training of new staff, unless ICL Pathway agreed to
provide additional counter staff training (which would be charged in
accordance with the rate card in paragraph 8.3 of Schedule A12 of the
Codified Agreement). User training services provided by Fujitsu were no
longer a requirement from the date of the Varied and Restated Codified
Agreement in 2002.
124. Responsibility for planning, developing, delivering, and assessing training and
education in relation to the rollout of the Horizon system was sub-contracted by
ICL Pathway to Peritas, a subsidiary of ICL PLC, under the terms of a Purchase
Agreement dated 26 July 1996 (the “Peritas Purchase Agreement’). According
to publicly available information, the principal business activity of Peritas was the
provision of training and related services. Peritas was awarded the National
Training Award in 1997 and the IT Training Company of the Year Award between
1994 and 1997. Peritas changed its name to ICL Training Services Limited in
1998 and to KnowledgePool Limited (“KnowledgePool’”) in 1999.
Page 36 of 193
125.
126.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Peritas’ training specifications with respect to the Horizon system were set out in
Appendix 1 to the Peritas Purchase Agreement. This required Peritas staff to
undergo a ‘gear up’ before delivering training events, which would “verify their
capabilities”, train them in POL “culture, policy, procedures” and “establish the
capability’ to deliver the relevant training event (FSL_04/123). Peritas was also
required to ensure the effectiveness of the training programme was consistent
with the Kirkpatrick model. The processes for doing so were set out in a Training
Evaluation Paper and included (i) obtaining user feedback on the course, and (ii)
testing user competence on using the system (FSL_04/124).
Further detail on the specific role of Peritas in relation to the implementation of
the Horizon system is set out below.
Development of the Training Specification
127.
128.
According to Change Proposal 1294 (which was raised in June 1998), the original
training programme under the Related Agreements was based upon ICL
Pathway providing a 4-hour classroom-based training event, with subsequent
exercises using workbooks in branches. This was to be followed by an “after care
visit’ to the branch to conduct a competency test. The amendments proposed in
Change Proposal 1294 included, (i) removing the requirement for the
competency test to be carried out during the aftercare visit, as it would instead
be conducted during the appropriate training event, and (ii) the aftercare visit
would be timed to coincide with the installation / go live dates for each branch
(FSL_04/125).
Release 1A was rolled out in the Stroud area in September and October 1996.
Given the limited functionality of Release 1A, the scale of the training provided
was smaller than that required for later releases. A two-hour workshop was held
Page 37 of 193
129.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
with staff which was timed to coincide with installation of the equipment.
Exercises, workbooks and quick reference guides were also provided
(FSL_04/126). A Lessons Learned report prepared by ICL Pathway in relation to
the Initial Go Live (“IGL”) phase contained a summary taken from a report on the
IGL training provided in Stroud. Feedback in the Lessons Learned report
included that the “training and training documentation worked very well for the
post masters’, the use of workbook exercises were “essential for user's
confidence”, trainers needed a “comprehensive understanding” of POL
procedures, and in-branch training “is not ideal, and if used, time needs to be
added to take account of the distractions and interruptions” (FSL_04/127).
The process to achieve development, delivery and sign off for training material
for Release 1C onwards was set out in a “Training development & sign off
document’, as follows:
a. Training Needs Analysis: This involved identifying the business needs to
be achieved, setting business objectives, and drafting course
specifications and performance indicators.
b. Training Plans: Peritas was required to produce, (i) a Draft Programme
Development Plan mapping out the specification, development schedule
and allocation of resources, (ii) a Training Plan setting the objectives,
performance standards, proposed media and timings for development of
the course to begin, and (iii) a Training Programme Plan mapping out
the schedule for the entire training programme. These would be
submitted to ICL Pathway for discussion and comment before being
signed off by ICL Pathway.
Page 38 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
c. Training Course development cycle: This involved the development of
training materials and evaluation sheets. Training modules would be
scripted by Peritas and subject to peer review, using other trainers as
‘students’. When all modules of a training course were in final draft, a
‘dry run’ would be conducted to ICL Pathway staff. Comments from the
dry run were incorporated into the training material.
d. Sign off procedure: The training material to be approved by POL would
be delivered to the model office testing team for comment. A dry run
would then be delivered to POL, ICL Pathway and the Programme
Delivery Authority (the “PDA”). More than one dry run would be delivered
if significant changes were recommended to the course. Once
comments from the dry run had been incorporated, the training event
would be signed off by the PDA and ICL Pathway.
e. Delivery cycle: This included sending invitations to POL staff and
delivering the training course.
f. User Evaluation Procedure: At the end of each training session, an
evaluation form would be completed by each delegate to review the
training received and their confidence in using the system. The
information from these forms was fed into Peritas’ Training Project
Administration system which generated weekly reports of attendance
and satisfaction. These reports would be submitted to ICL Pathway for
monitoring (FSL_04/128). In reviewing its hard copy archives, Fujitsu
has located thousands of these evaluation forms in respect of courses
held in or around the period 2000 and 2001. In the time available, Fujitsu
has scanned and processed a proportional sample of approximately
Page 39 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
15% of the hard copy evaluation forms and submitted these to the Inquiry
(FSL_04/129 to FSL_04/200). Fujitsu has offered to the Inquiry to scan
and process the remaining evaluation forms if it would assist the Inquiry’s
investigations.
130. In line with the above, in March 1997, Peritas produced a “Training Needs
131.
Analysis” document in conjunction with ICL Pathway and POL. The analysis was
the result of research undertaken by Peritas, which included, (i) reviews with
secondees from the Benefits Agency and POL to ICL Pathway, (ii) attendance
by Peritas trainers at a postmaster induction course and a Post Office Cash
Accounting Course, (iii) “detailed reviews” with POL’s National Training
Consultant, (iv) visits to six reference Post Offices in the Swindon area, and (v)
supplementary discussions with postmasters.
Peritas identified the training events required to satisfy the baseline objective of
the training programme, which was stated as being “[t]o ensure that all staff who
work in post offices are competent in the use of the automated platform, are
aware of the impact on operational procedures caused by the introduction of the
platform and that specialist staff are provided with the appropriate additional
information to perform their job role within an automated post office”
(FSL_04/201). The conclusions reached in the Training Needs Analysis included
that:
a. a ‘dedicated classroom event’ had been identified as being the most
efficient process for initial learning. The venue must, however, be readily
accessible (i.e. 15-30 minutes travel); and
Page 40 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
b. computer-based training would provide consolidation and back-up
support. This was to be provided through a Training Mode within the
Horizon system (FSL_04/201).
132. This document also set out the competencies required of different groupings of
staff within POL, which informed the specific training courses intended for those
groupings. Draft course specifications were set out in Appendix D.
133. Broadly, the proposed training programme in the Training Needs Analysis
comprised:
a. the one-and-a-half-day Counter Managers Course, targeted at all
postmasters, identified POL managers, and other staff who were
required to understand the full functionality of the Horizon system,
including balancing reports. According to the draft specification for this
course, the first four modules were dedicated to giving delegates an
overview of the system hardware and desktop menu and taking them
through the transaction screens which would be used to process various
transactions, such as the sale of stock items using various payment
methods, bill payments, DVLA licensing, bank withdrawals and cashing
cheques, and voiding, modifying or reversing transactions. Modules five
to seven would instruct delegates in generating reports and balancing
activities at the end of the business day and, separately, at the end of
the business week;
b. the one-day Counter Assistants Course, targeted at postmaster
assistants and counter assistants (some of whom may attend the
Counter Managers Course instead). The first four modules of this course
mirrored the specification for the Counter Managers Course. Modules
Page 41 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
five and six would instruct delegates on the procedure for balancing an
individual counter position and, briefly, the office balancing process;
c. a two-day course for specialist POL staff, such as auditors, which was
based on the content of the Counter Managers Course but tailored to
meet the needs of the specific teams in question;
d. a five-day ‘Train the Trainer’ course for POL trainers. Further information
in relation to this course is set out below (FSL_04/201).
134. In June 1998, ICL Pathway produced a Training and User Awareness Baseline
Document which set out an updated approach to the training programme. This
reflected the proposed programme in the Training Needs Analysis, as detailed
above. Some aspects of the programme differed from the original programme,
including the following:
a. The User Awareness Event (“UAE”) was no longer mandatory, as initially
proposed;
b. There would be no workbook-based learning during the training events,
but workbook exercises would be provided and recommended for use
in-branch. Examples of the workbooks can be found at (FSL_04/202 and
FSL_04/212);
c. The ‘after care visit’ would not be undertaken by Peritas staff. According
to Change Proposal 1292, this would be the responsibility of Horizon
Field Support Officers (‘HFSOs”) (FSL_04/213); and
d. There would no longer be a specialist training help desk to support
distance learning (FSL_04/214).
Page 42 of 193
135.
136.
137.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The Training and User Awareness Baseline document also set out details of the
approach to the ‘gear up’ of Peritas trainers, which was to take three weeks. This
included one week’s training to be a postmaster, one week’s training covering
the “training techniques associated with the Horizon programme” and one week’s
training to “deliver and understand the Horizon system/good practice”
(FSL_04/214). The purpose of the ‘gear up’ was to ensure Peritas staff were
“familiar with the functions of both automated and non-automated post offices
and are competent to fulfil their role” (FSL_04/201).
In addition to the training events detailed above, branch managers and
postmasters in affected branches would be invited to attend a Management
Infrastructure Briefing (“MIB”). This was part of the ‘Split Implementation
Programme Strategy’, whereby the rollout of the Horizon system was to be split
into an ‘Infrastructure’ phase and an ‘Installation’ phase. The objectives of the
MIB were to introduce the Horizon system and inform delegates of the reasons
for a change to the business. The event was to be delivered to 50-100 managers
at a time and focussed on informing managers of the reasons for the automation
programme, explaining the overall infrastructure and implementation programme
and informing them of where to gain help and support (FSL_04/215).
Over 200 branches were invited to attend MIB events which took place in May
1998. 100 of these branches were then selected to take part in the Live Trial
(FSL_04/216). The MIB was a key event in the ‘Infrastructure’ phase, as it was
used to inform managers of their role and responsibilities in order to prepare for
the way forward. In order to ensure the MIB contained correct, relevant
information as the training programme adapted throughout rollout, a change
Page 43 of 193
138.
139.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
process was put in place to ensure errors and changes could be actioned quickly
and effectively (FSL_04/217).
During the 12-week ‘Installation’ phase, the UAE would take place, aimed at all
personnel working within or providing support to Post Office branches, to give an
insight into the major changes affecting working practices and the implications of
the implementation of Horizon (FSL_04/215). As with the MIB, to ensure the UAE
was providing correct and relevant information as the rollout programme
progressed and adapted, ICL Pathway put in place a change programme to
ensure changes and errors could be implemented quickly and effectively
(FSL_04/218).
The course specification for the UAE outlined that it was to be delivered in a
venue with a theatre style layout, capable of accommodating up to 100
delegates, and would be presented by a speaker from ICL Pathway supported
by a POL representative (FSL_04/219).
Training Programme - Live Trial
140.
141
142.
The programme of training and awareness events planned for Release 2 and the
Live Trial of Horizon was set out in a Training Strategy document in March 1999
(FSL_04/216).
All branches participating in the Live Trial were encouraged to attend UAEs. This
included the 204 branches which had previously attended UAEs as part of the
training provided in respect of Release 1C. Branches that did not attend a UAE
were provided with a User Awareness Briefing Pack “to ensure that they had the
appropriate information available to them”.
Within the five working days prior to installation of the Horizon system, Counter
Assistants and Counter Managers Courses would take place. Both courses were
Page 44 of 193
143.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
delivered in a classroom environment to a maximum of six attendees at a time,
and delegates were required to pass a competency test (the Performance
Standard Assessment (“PSA”)) on completion. Appendix A to the Training
Strategy Document lists amendments to these courses implemented after
Release 1C (FSL_04/216). The five-day window was later extended to a 10-day
window for some branches (FSL_04/220).
Before a branch could ‘go live’ on the Horizon system, it had to achieve Minimum
Training Compliance (“MTC”). This meant that a sufficient number of staff in each
branch had to be trained to use Horizon under normal circumstances by passing
the competency test. The exact number for each branch was defined by POL
(FSL_04/221). Peritas was required to report to ICL Pathway on competency
levels, including whether delegates passed or failed the competency test
(FSL_04/123). If delegates failed to pass the competency test, they would be
scheduled to attend remedial training and re-take the test.
Training Programme — National Rollout
144.
145.
According to an ICL Pathway Implementation presentation dated February 2001,
the scope of the training programme for national rollout had required 72,000
counter staff to be trained, delivery of nine different types of training course, and
provision of 2,000 standalone training platforms. At its peak, 120 courses were
being delivered each day. The average age of the delegates to be trained was
65, with the eldest being 92 (FSL_04/222).
The training programme for the national rollout was set out in version 11 of the
Training and User Awareness Baseline Document (FSL_04/223). Training during
national rollout was to include the UAE, MIB, a Managers Course and a Counter
Assistants Course. The content, structure and format of these were intended to
Page 45 of 193
146.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
be identical to that provided during the Live Trial (FSL_04/216 and FSL_04/224).
ICL Pathway was required to provide monthly, weekly and daily reports to POL
(via Peritas) containing statistical and management information to measure ICL
Pathway’s compliance with the criteria of Requirement 915. The information to
be included in these reports included the results of the training programme,
trends in feedback, and forecasts of when offices scheduled for installation of the
Horizon system were expected to meet MTC (FSL_04/225).
ICL Pathway would also provide specialist training to groups other than those
working in branches, including:
a. a‘Train the Trainer’ Course lasting five days, aimed at POL trainers who
would be training existing and new staff on using the Horizon system
following its implementation. This course included the content of the UAE
and MIB for information purposes, and would cover delivery of both the
Managers and Counter Assistants courses. Peritas staff would support
the first live training delivered by the newly trained trainer to end-users,
following which the newly trained trainer would be accredited
(FSL_04/216). This accreditation would last to the end of Release NR2.
Trainer upgrade training was available with each new release of Horizon
software (FSL_04/226).
b. Auditors and specialist staff within POL were to be provided with a two-
day course based on the content delivered to branch managers and
tailored to the needs of POL’s national audit team. This course looked at
the use of the Horizon system from an auditor's perspective and
concentrated on possible areas of fraud and how to detect them. By
September 2000, this course was three days in length. The first day
Page 46 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
focussed on the functions and usage of the Horizon system. The second
day focussed on balancing and the suspense account, and the final day
focussed on systems for investigation in a Horizon environment
(FSL_04/227).
c. HFSOs were “resourced from within POCL” and their role was to support
the installation of Horizon by providing onsite support to branches.
HFSOs were to be assigned to a branch on the day of installation and
would remain at the branch for the following two working days to assist
with migration activities and provide support and advice to branch staff.
Training was provided to prepare the HFSO to assist with
implementation before, during and after it took place in branches. The
HFSO course comprised a three-day induction by POL, in addition to the
one-and-a-half-day Counter Managers Course, and a separate five-day
course covering the specific requirements of a HFSO (FSL_04/216). The
second week of the HFSO course focussed on how to migrate Post
Office data into the Horizon system once it had been installed by ICL
Pathway. The HFSO course would be carried out in a training room
environment which was set up to simulate the whole migration process
using multiple training scenarios (FSL_04/228).
147. On 19 May 1999, during the Acceptance process, Acceptance Incident 218 (“Al
218”) was raised because of deficiencies in the accounting modules of the
Counter Managers Training Course, stating that “[t]he Managers Training Course
is not acceptable due to deficiencies in the accounting modules. In the live
environment, the training given did not equip the users to perform the completion
Page 47 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
of office cash accounts. This is a basic POCL function that is central to running
and accounting for the POCL network” (FSL_04/229).
148. Al 218 was categorised as a ‘high’ severity incident. Problems were being
encountered by users when using the stock unit balancing and cash account
parts of the system, which resulted in high volumes of help desk calls and
disruption in branches (FSL_04/226). Reasons for this, as identified by ICL
Pathway, included uncertainty about POL business rules and how to apply them
in the new system (FSL_04/230).
149. In response to the issues raised in Al 218, POL and ICL Pathway agreed to
amend the training courses. CCN 519a was raised on 16 July 1999 to amend the
contractual terms and implement the following changes requested by POL:
a. courses should reflect changes to the balancing process which had been
made since Live Trial, and should have an “increased stress on
balancing elements”;
b. the addition of extra exercises and practice to the Managers Course; and
c. time previously spent on the Counter Assistants Course dealing with the
Benefit Encashment Service (“BES”) should instead be spent on
balancing or, for those who do not preform balancing, on more practice
using the system (FSL_04/231).
150. Suggested course specifications for the amended courses were appended to
Change Proposal 2081 (FSL_04/232).
151. The following steps were then taken by ICL Pathway:
a. The Counter Manager Course was revised to emphasise and provide
more coverage of the balancing process, with much of the second day
of the course devoted to this.
Page 48 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
b. The HFSO training programme was revised to provide more
opportunities to practice migration processes. ICL Pathway re-trained
HFSOs during Live Trial to increase coverage of balancing and related
topics. ICL Pathway also developed a new three-day course for HFSOs
to be attended after the POL induction training and before the five-day
HFSO course. This provided in-depth coverage of balancing, the cash
account, reversals, use of the suspense account, error detection and
correction. ICL Pathway reported to POL that this new course had been
“very well received” by POL HFSOs and POL observers, “who were
pleased that their comments from Live Trial were taken onboard [sic]”
(FSL_04/229).
c. Additional balancing training was provided on a weekly basis through the
use of ICL Trainers. The cost of this was borne by ICL Pathway.
d. The number of ‘Transition Executives’ (“TE”), whose role it was to
provide help and support to HFSOs, was doubled to eight, such that an
extra TE was added to each region.
e. In July 1999, the Horizon system was installed in 24 additional outlets to
form a basis on which the effectiveness of the changes to the training
programme could be (and were) demonstrated (FSL_04/230).
152. On 10 August 1999, Bruce McNiven (Director of the Horizon Programme) wrote
to John Dicks of ICL Pathway enclosing an evaluation of the changes
implemented in relation to Al 218. Mr McNiven stated in this letter that while many
of the agreed criteria had been met, “the training and go-live process relies on
the deployment of POCL HFSP recourse...without this resource there would
Page 49 of 193
153.
154.
155.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
have to be a complete revision of the training approach in order to ensure
helpdesks were not rendered ineffective by the high level of calls”. POL was not
willing to reduce the severity rating of Al 218 from ‘high’ (FSL_04/233).
According to the minutes of a POL meeting on 11 August 1999, POL’s view was
that “Training has not been adequate... With ICL, we have worked on a range of
solutions. While these solutions have improved the position, staff have only been
able to cope as well as they do, because of HFSO support’ (FSL_04/234).
The following day, Mr Dicks wrote in a letter to Mr McNiven that ICL Pathway
“has done everything it can to improve the training and prepare users for
Horizon”, and that the remaining issues to be addressed, including user
confidence in the system, “will be achieved only through managing the change
in POCL business processes such that POCL’s target standard approach is
adopted across the Post Office network”. Until this was achieved, “it will be
necessary for POCL to substitute additional support in one form or another’. For
these reasons, ICL Pathway’s view was that Al 218 should be closed and no
further revisions were required to the training courses, save for “minor
improvements already identified” (FSL_04/229).
On 12 August 1999, ICL Pathway and POL discussed Al 218 at a Management
Resolution Meeting. According to the minutes of this meeting, POL repeated its
view that the training programme at that time was insufficient to satisfy
Requirement 915. ICL Pathway disagreed with this, on the basis that changes to
the training courses had already been implemented and a distinction needed to
be drawn between the training courses and changes being introduced to POL’s
business processes (FSL_04/235).
Page 50 of 193
156.
157.
158.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
On 13 August 1999, a joint workshop was held at which actions were agreed for
the resolution of Al 218, including the introduction of a new pre-entry event
intended to, (i) “demystify computers’, (ii) introduce standard balance
terminology, and (iii) explain the change from a manual to an automated system,
for approximately 20% of the user population. In response, ICL Pathway offered
to develop and run, in conjunction with POL, 370 half-day events for up to 3,700
office managers (FSL_04/230). Potentially suitable candidates for the course
would need to be identified by POL (FSL_04/236).
As set out in the First Corporate Statement, CSR Acceptance was not achieved
by the 16 August 1999 target date specified in the Codified Agreement. Al 218
was one of the three ‘Disputed Category A Faults’ identified in the Supplemental
Agreement as outstanding at the end of the CSR Operational Trial Review period
(FSL_04/237).
ICL Pathway issued its Acceptance Proposal in relation to Al 218 on 23 August
1999 in which it submitted that the Acceptance Incident should be closed as the
‘Clearance Plan’ had been successfully implemented. The proposal stated that
“no effort has been spared to develop training events suitable for the wide range
of users in the POCL network. However, we strongly maintain that the success
of a programme of this size cannot be achieved by training alone. A change
management approach must exist for pre-entry and steady state environments
as well as for formal training”. \CL Pathway’s position was that the balancing
process was too complicated for a high proportion of branches and that training
was only part of the “massive change programme” that POL was undertaking by
automating the Post Office network. The Acceptance Proposal also stated that,
since 1996:
Page 51 of 193
159.
160.
161.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
a. training events had been extended to provide more detailed training;
b. the training course population had increased from 67,000 to 72,000;
c. the number of training events to be provided by ICL Pathway increased
from 12,000 to 12,600 “to provide contingency for lower than expected
attendance”; and
d. following the cancellation of the benefits card, specific benefit card
training was replaced by training focussing on balancing (FSL_04/230).
As set out in Fujitsu’s First Corporate Statement, CSR Acceptance and
authorisation by the Release Authorisation Board for national rollout were
deemed to have been achieved on 24 September 1999. The Second
Supplemental Agreement dated 24 September 1999 recorded Al 218 as one of
the 13 Acceptance Incidents outstanding at the date of the Agreement
(FSL_04/238). By the terms of the Second Supplemental Agreement, the parties
agreed to use reasonable endeavours to resolve Al 218 in accordance with the
Resolution Plan for Al 218 referred to in Schedule 2 of the Second Supplemental
Agreement (FSL_04/239)
Section 3 of the Resolution Plan for Al 218 recorded that changes had been
made to the Counter Managers Course to spend more time principally on stock
unit balancing and cash account, and that these changes had proved successful
in live events. It also listed the following seven agreed areas for potential
improvement in association with Al 218. All activities listed had either been
completed or were on schedule to be completed (FSL_04/239).
Contractually, ICL Pathway was required to meet the critical success factors set
out in the table headed ‘Critical Success Factors’ in the Resolution Plan. These
Page 52 of 193
162.
163.
164.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
included that all branches should be able to complete the cash account balance
process and, on average, the NBSC should not receive more than 1.2 calls per
week from each branch when performing their first two balances.
As part of the Rectification Plan, and following a review of the presentation of the
PSA, the methodology which KnowledgePool trainers were to follow when
presenting the PSA to delegates was amended. POL had expressed concern
that, up to September 1999, no delegates had been passed back to POL as being
unable to use the system (FSL_04/240).
According to an ICL Pathway Progress Summary for Input to Horizon / Pathway
Delivery Meeting dated 24th November 1999, “[a]// ICL Pathway actions on the
Al 218 Rectification Plan” were complete and a joint meeting was scheduled with
POL on 22 November 1999 to assess performance against the agreed criteria.
ICL Pathway’s latest commitment had been to submit KnowledgePool’s Trainer
Quality Monitoring report, which had been done during the week ending 19
November 1999. This progress summary also reported that the pilot of the Pre-
Entry Event took place on 9 November 1999 and was “well received by POCL
delegates and Training representatives” (FSL_04/241).
The Trainer Quality Monitoring report explained the processes used to ensure
consistency and quality of trainers presenting the Horizon training, based on
KnowledgePool’s standard procedures which had been adapted for the Horizon
project. In summary:
a. Delegate feedback: Delegates were requested to complete evaluation
questionnaires at the end of every session. The scores and comments
provided by delegates were recorded against the relevant trainer’s
record and the KnowledgePool Training Operations Manager (“TOM”)
Page 53 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
would be informed of results which were either below the satisfactory
level or exceptionally good. If negative comments were received, the
TOM would review all evaluation questionnaires for the course to
establish if it was an isolated comment. If a trend emerged, the TOM
would arrange for an observer to attend the next appropriate event run
by that trainer, who would provide feedback to the trainer regarding
areas of deficiency and agree a plan for rectifying any issues. If the
trainer demonstrated a fundamental problem with the bulk of the course,
they would be given the opportunity to retrain, following which they would
be observed again. If they failed to deliver to the required standard on
their second observed course, they would be removed from the training
programme.
. Observations: Each trainer would be observed by KnowledgePool
accredited trainers at least once every 30 days. A number of random,
unannounced visits would also be made each month. Observers would
use a standard marking guide to ensure consistency, including use of
the correct documentation, correct set up, the trainer's style and
ensuring key learning points are covered. The results of the observations
would be reported by back to ICL Pathway, together with a short
indication of any necessary action taken.
. Complaints and comments: Any complaints or comments from POL
regarding training would be routed via the ICL Pathway Training and
Awareness Manager and would be investigated. The Training and
Awareness Manager would provide feedback to POL and an overview
Page 54 of 193
165.
166.
167.
168.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
of the responses to complaints or comments would be provided as part
of regular Training Review Meetings (FSL_04/242).
The ICL Pathway Progress Summary for Input to Horizon / Pathway Delivery
Meeting dated 8 December 1999 reported on progress against the 13
outstanding Acceptance Incidents. According to this report, all ICL Pathway
actions in relation to Al 218 were “now complete and agreed. There are still some
actions that require POCL to complete which will fully close Al 218"
(FSL_04/243).
According to a Performance Review Report for Al 218 dated 2 December 1999,
it had been agreed at the meeting on 22 November 1999 between ICL Pathway
and POL that the Rectification Plan had been followed to the satisfaction of both
parties (FSL_04/244).
During the period following the Second Supplemental Agreement, a number of
further changes were proposed to the timings of events during the training and
implementation cycle, including Change Proposal 2650 which was raised to
extend the length of the Counter Managers course to two days. The benefits of
this included that more time would be available to spend on balancing and related
topics, which would potentially reduce the volumes of calls to the Service Desk
regarding balancing (FSL_04/245).
During the last phases of national rollout, the option of onsite counter assistant
and postmaster courses was introduced. According to Change Control Note
0731, which was raised in November 2000, the branches to be installed during
the final sweep of installations (the “tail”) were geographically dispersed so
classroom-based training was expected to be poorly attended (FSL_04/246).
Page 55 of 193
169.
170.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The specification for these onsite courses was set out in an “Onsite and
Combined CM/CA Course Specification Document” (FSL_04/247).
Following national rollout, responsibility for training staff was handed over to
POL. According to Change Proposal 2372, this included training on CSR+ where
it was being implemented in branches which had already gone live on the Horizon
system (FSL_04/248).
According to Change Control Note 620, in April 2000, PON was considering its
options to ensure that existing users of CSR became competent in CSR+ once
it became available. POL sought a proposal from ICL Pathway as to how they
would approach the delivery of training for CSR+ to existing Horizon users, and
the associated costs of this. Fujitsu understands that POL ultimately decided to
undertake this work themselves (FSL_04/249). Fujitsu also understands that ICL
Pathway and POL agreed terms for POL to use the ICL Pathway training
materials in developing ‘steady state’ training (FSL_04/250 and FSL_04/251).
MANAGEMENT CARE VISIT PROGRAMME
171.
The following section of this corporate statement addresses the Inquiry’s
questions in relation to the Management Care Visit Programme (the “MCVP”)
and expands on information provided in the First Corporate Statement in this
regard.
Background
172.
The purpose of the MCVP is described in the MCVP Process Definition. This
provides that the MCVP was designed to monitor postmaster perception in
respect of services that ICL Pathway, and later Fujitsu, delivered (FSL_04/252).
The MCVP was managed by the Customer Services department (FSL_04/253).
Page 56 of 193
173.
174.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Participation in the MCVP was optional and postmasters were required to opt-in
before a visit was arranged. MCVP visits were originally attended by an ICL
Pathway Field Service Manager (as described in more detail above). Following
a reform of the MCVP process in 2001, visits were carried out by MCVP
managers from ICL Pathway and POL.
Feedback from MCVP visits was collated to assist ICL Pathway in understanding
postmaster issues and concerns (FSL_04/252).
The initial MCVP process
175.
176.
As noted in the Monthly Progress Report for August 1997 (FSL_04/254), ICL
Pathway presented its plans for the MCVP to POL Regional Liaison Managers
in or around that time. It appears that the MCVP was planned to be performed
on an annual basis, with visits to around 500 Post Office branches every year
following the national rollout. Prior to national rollout, a smaller subset of Post
Office branches were to form part of the programme (FSL_04/253).
Progress updates were generally recorded in ICL Pathway Monthly Progress
Reports. For example, it was reported that in:
a. November 1997, 16 MCVP visits had been conducted and feedback
remained encouraging (FSL_04/255);
b. December 1997, MCVP visits carried out to date had focused entirely on
Release 1b, a software release, and overall satisfaction of the services
provided was over 90%. It was also noted that positive responses were
obtained in relation to the Service Desk and services provided by Horizon
system engineers. Concerns were raised in relation to training schedules,
and the travel and costs associated with attending such training sessions
(FSL_04/256); and
Page 57 of 193
177.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
c. September 1998, progress on the MCVP was ‘inadequate’, stating that
only 23 visits had been completed, 28 had been scheduled and 49 were
yet to be arranged (FSL_04/257).
Further details of the MCVP process in these early years is set out in CS
Operations Manuals (see, for example, FSL_04/23, FSL_04/63, FSL_04/64 and
FSL_04/253).
Preparation and Training
178.
179.
180.
According to the CS Operations Manuals, before any contact was made with
Post Office branches, Field Service Managers were provided with certain
information from the Customer Satisfaction Manager (and in later stages of the
programme, the Strategic Services Implementation Manager) (as applicable, the
“FSM Manager’), including (but not limited to):
a. the purpose and goals of the MCVP;
b. the interview procedure and questionnaire;
c. any other relevant documentation; and
d. address and questions or concerns raised by interviewers.
Field Service Managers conducting interviews followed a standard procedure so
that results could be fairly compared, and accurate analysis could be obtained.
The CS Operations Manuals provide that documentation was given to Field
Service Managers in electronic and paper form, which included a hard copy
predefined interview pack which could be taken to the interviews. The interview
packs themselves are said to have contained:
a. aprocedure document, including an Interview Summary Guide designed
to be used as a reference guide during interview. A copy of this guide is
Page 58 of 193
181.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
set out in the Customer Service: Service Management Operations Manual
(FSL_04/253);
b. a phone script to be followed when contacting Post Office branches to
arrange an appointment;
c. sample forms;
d. a questionnaire and associated documents; and
e. alist of post offices to contact.
The CS Operations Manuals explain that, prior to their visits, Field Service
Managers were required to review the recent Service Desk call history of their
allocated Post Office branches, to determine whether a visit was necessary. For
example, FSL_04/253 states: “[T]he call history should be assessed to check
that there is no reason why the post offices should not be contacted now to
arrange a visit.”
The MCVP Interview
182.
183.
In accordance with the CS Operations Manuals, once it was decided that a visit
was necessary, the Field Service Manager would contact the relevant branch
directly, following a phone script to arrange an appointment. Once confirmed, the
FSM Manager would be informed accordingly to record appointment details in
an Appointments Database.
The questionnaire provided to Field Service Managers described the general
structure of MCVP interviews. Based on the CS Operation Manuals, the
questionnaire had eleven sections:
a. Section 2: general details of how the implementation of the Horizon
system went at the Post Office branch. Responses to this section were
not included in the analysis process;
Page 59 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
b. Section 3 to 10: multiple choice questions, each with positive and negative
answer options which could be supplemented with comments; and
c. Section 11: a chance for the interviewees to express any concerns,
problems or suggestions for improvement in respect of the Horizon
system and its associated services.
184. The CS Operations Manuals set out a number of action points following the
interview.
Analysis and Reporting
185. According to the CS Operations Manuals, the FSM Manager was responsible for
the analysis of feedback from MCVP visits and publication of monthly and
quarterly reports summarising their findings. Monthly reports were for internal
use only. Quarterly reports were said to have been provided to POL via the
Horizon Satisfaction Forum.
186. The CS Operations Manuals state that concerns, suggestions or comments
which required further action were recorded separately on the data analysis
spreadsheet as a log for action. Subsequent action was also to be recorded and
kept open until a satisfactory conclusion was reached, after which the action
would be marked as closed. It was the responsibility of the FSM Manager to
maintain this log. It is also noted that the FSM Manager only contacted Post
Office branches to follow up on feedback if it was agreed by the interviewee and
only when considered necessary by ICL Pathway.
Revised MCVP Process
187. The MCVP appears to have been reviewed by ICL Pathway and POL in or
around 2000 and 2001. The “Customer Service Monthly Report — July 2001”
explains that a revised MCVP process was introduced around mid-2001
Page 60 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
(FSL_04/258). The revised process is documented in the MCVP Process
Definition (FSL_04/252).
188. Under this revised process:
a. POL became responsible for contacting the Post Office branches to
arrange the visits;
b. interviews were to be conducted using an Aide Memoir document as a
prompt, (FSL_04/259) in addition to questionnaires;
c. interviews were to be conducted by MCVP managers from POL and ICL
Pathway. The ICL Pathway MCVP manager could conduct interviews
alone if the POL MCVP manager did not attend the Post Office branch;
and
d. The administration of the MCVP process was shared between POL and
ICL Pathway. A copy of the questionnaire was left with the postmaster
to complete after the visit and returned to POL. The questionnaire results
were shared with the ICL Pathway MCVP administrator on a quarterly
basis. The ICL Pathway MCVP manager submitted the completed Aide
Memoirs to the ICL Pathway MCVP administrator for input into a
database for analysis. The MCVP Process Definition explains that “A//
results produced by the ICL MCVP administrator will be archived every
quarter. All archived data will be kept for a 5-year period and then
destroyed.”
189. The MCVP was withdrawn in or around December 2003.
KNOWLEDGE AND RECTIFICATION OF BUGS
190. As explained in Fujitsu’s opening statement dated 4 October 2022, no complex
IT system will ever be completely free of bugs, errors and defects (“BEDs’).
Page 61 of 193
191.
192.
193.
194.
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Fujitsu’s monitoring systems and processes seek to identify faults, log them as
Incidents, and then work to resolve them following the agreed Incident
management processes. Fujitsu also relies on Incidents being reported by
postmasters directly, or by POL. Many thousands of Incidents have been logged
since the inception of Horizon.
In relation to the 29 BEDs listed by Mr Justice Fraser in Appendix 1 to the Horizon
Issues Judgment (the “Technical Appendix”), the Inquiry has asked Fujitsu to
provide details relating to the identification, investigation, communication and
resolution of the BEDs.
In February 2021, Fujitsu helped to prepare a report for POL in relation to the 29
BEDs identified by Mr Justice Fraser (the “BED Report”). This BED Report has
been disclosed to Core Participants and is exhibited to this corporate statement
at (FSL_04/260).
In addition to the BED Report, Fujitsu has set out in Appendix 1 a series of
summaries addressing each of the 29 BEDs and any sub-issues identified within
those classifications. The BED Report and the summaries set out in Appendix 1
of this corporate statement seek to build on the Technical Appendix and have
been prepared by reference to a variety of sources. These summaries are
indicative of, amongst other things: (i) the investigation of each issue, (ii) the
resolution of each issue, (iii) communication with other parties, including POL
and wider management, and (iv) the impact on branches.
The summaries in Appendix 1 are based on a review of contemporaneous
documents, primarily in the form of PiniCLs, Peaks and KELs, that have been
identified as related to the relevant BED. The summaries should be read in
conjunction with these underlying records.
Page 62 of 193
195.
196.
197.
198.
Appendix 2 to this corporate statement includes a table of PinICLs, Peaks and
KELs that Fujitsu has identified as being relevant or linked to the 29 BEDs
(FSL_04/311 to FSL_04/640).
Given the nature of the issues, the appendices are not intended to be an
exhaustive list of all documents relevant to each BED.
in order to assist the Inquiry, Fujitsu has disclosed to the Inquiry various
communications between itself and POL in relation to the 29 BEDs.
The Inquiry has also asked about the existence of any other problems / bugs or
other sources of error in the Horizon system from the pilot to the date of the
Request. In this regard, Fujitsu has disclosed records from the PinCL, Peak and
KEL databases (as described above) created on or before 31 December 2000.
As described in this corporate statement, there are procedures in place to
monitor issues in the Horizon system, and records which fall within the Inquiry’s
requests have been produced with this corporate statement. Fujitsu is prepared
to disclose the remaining records contained within the PinICL, Peak and KEL
databases to the Inquiry should that be of assistance.
Statement of Truth
pates:_24/12/200%
Page 63 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
INDEX TO THE SECOND CORPORATE STATEMENT OF FUJITSU SERVICES
LIMITED
Ext
FSL_04/1 Change Control Note No 1200 POINQ0126617F I FUJ00120425
v.7.0 dated 7 August 2003
FSL_04/2 ICL Pathway Customer Service POINQO086036F I FUJ00079865
Incident Management Process
v.1.0 dated 13 November 2000
FSL_04/3 POA Operations Incident POINQOO86559F I FUJ00080388
Management Procedure v.9.0
dated 12 September 2017
FSL_04/4 End to End Support Process POINQ0126186F I FUJ00119994
Operational Agreement v.1.0 dated
10 October 1999
FSL_04/5 End to End Application Support I POINQ0086383F I FUJ00080212
Strategy v.1.0 dated 28 July 2011
FSL_04/6 ICL Pathway Customer Service POINQO086026F I FUJ00079855
Policy Manual v.1.0 dated 26
January 2001
FSL_04/7 Fujitsu POA Customer Service POINQ0086146F I FUJ00079975
Policy Manual v.2.0 dated 14
September 2005
FSL_04/8 Customer Service Organisation POINQ0126618F I FUJ00120426
Structure dated April 2005
FSL_04/9 Customer Services Organisational I POINQ0126621F I FUJ00120429
Chart dated in 2006
FSL_04/10 Email from Chrissie Kennedy to POINQ0085344F I FUJ00075735
ZDL UKS ICL Pathway Recipients
with subject "Brief EnCounters"
dated 17 December 1999
FSL_04/11 Brief EnCounters, Issue 4 dated I POINQ0126622F I FUJ00120430
July 2003
FSL_04/12 Brief EnCounters, Issue 5 dated POINQ0126623F I FUJ00120431
November 2003
FSL_04/13 Brief EnCounters, Issue 6 dated POINQ0126624F I FUJ00120432
February 2004
FSL_04/14 Recruitment Authorisation POINQ0126625F I FUJ00120433
Requirement dated 23 October
2008
Page 64 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Resourcing
Procedure v.1.0 dated 22 June
2000
FSL_04/16
Performance First Circular dated
13 February 2012
POINQ0126627F
FUJ00120435
FSL_04/17
Performance Plus - Guide to
Documentation undated
POINQ0126628F
FUJ00120436
FSL_04/18
Organisation and Management
Review, Issue 3.0 dated 5 June
2006
POINQ0126630F
FUJ00120438
FSL_04/19
Post Office Training Guide and
Strategy v.0.1 dated 28 February
2007
POINQ0126632F
FUJ00120440
FSL_04/20
Post Office Employee Induction
Handbook v.5.0 dated June 2005
POINQO126635F
FUJ00120443
FSL_04/21
Service Management Service:
Service Description v.1.0 dated 31
December 2002
POINQ0126636F
FUJ00120444
FSL_04/22
Varied and Restated Codified
Agreement dated 31 December
2002
POINQ0006245F
FUJ00000074
FSL_04/23
Operations Manual for Customer
Service Directorate v.1.0 dated 26
November 2001
POINQO086046F
FUJ00079875
FSL_04/24
Operations Manual for Customer
Service Directorate v.2.0 dated 1
May 2002
POINQO086059F
FUJ00079888
FSL_04/25
Codified Agreement between Post
Office Counters Limited and ICL
Pathway Limited dated 28 July
1999
POINQ0006242F
FUJ00000071
FSL_04/26
Pathway Release Policy v.5.0
dated 16 July 1999
POINQ0124362F
FUJ00118128
FSL_04/27
Fujitsu Services RMG BU Release
Policy v.7.0 dated 14 September
2010
POINQ0126637F
FUJ00120445
FSL_04/28
CS Support Services Operations.
Manual v.2.0 dated 29 January
2001
POINQ0126638F
FUJ00120446
Page 65 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Service Management Service:
Service Description v.1.0 dated 24
August 2006
FSL_04/30 Service Management Service: POINQ0086551F I FUJ00080380
Service Description v.5.0 dated 30
November 2016
FSL_04/31 Schedule G01 to the Codified POINQ0126639F I FUJ00120447
Agreement titled POCL
Infrastructure Service Definition
v.1.0 dated 16 July 1999
FSL_04/32 Horizon Systems Helpdesk: POINQO086599F I FUJ00080428
Service Description v.1.0 dated 20
December 2002
FSL_04/33 Service Desk Service Description I POINQOO86655F I FUJ00080484
v.6.0 dated 12 March 2014
FSL_04/34 Horizon Service Desk Joint POINQOO86656F I FUJ00080485
Working Document v.3.0 dated 26
February 2014
FSL_04/35 Service Desk Service Description I POINQO086628F I FUJO0080457
v.1.0 dated 31 August 2006
FSL_04/36 Change Control Note No 1016a_ I POINQ0007046F I FUJ00000875
v.4.0 dated 30 October 2002
FSL_04/37 Change Control Note No 1409a POINQ0007275F I FUJ00001104
v.2.0 dated 3 June 2013
FSL_04/38 POA Customer Service Incident POINQ0086139F I FUJ00079968
Management Process Details v.4.0
dated 2 August 2005
FSL_04/39 Change Control Note No 777b POINQOO06855F I FUJ00000684
dated 24 July 2001
FSL_04/40 Service Desk Service Description I POINQ0086642F I FUJ00080471
v.2.0 dated 29 September 2008
FSL_04/41 Service Desk Service Description I POINQO086654F I FUJ00080483
v.5.0 dated 29 April 2013
FSL_04/42 I ICL Pathway Monthly Report - May I POINQ0064353F I FUJ00058182
1999 v.1.0 dated 14 June 1999
FSL_04/43 ICL Pathway Monthly Report - POINQ0064354F I FUJ00058183
June 1999 v.1.0 dated 15 July
1999
FSL_04/44 NR2 Horizon System Helpdesk POINQO086581F I FUJ00080410
Processes and Procedures
Page 66 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Description v.1.0 dated 15 June
1999
FSL_04/45 Horizon System Helpdesk POINQ0126194F I FUJ00120002
Operations Manual v.1.0 dated 28
February 1997
FSL_04/46 HSD Voice Bulletin dated May POINQ0126641F I FUJ00120449
2009
FSL_04/47 I HSD Voice Bulletin dated February I POINQ0126643F I FUJ00120451
2012
FSL_04/48 Service Description for Systems POINQ0126644F I FUJ00120452
Management Service v.1.0 dated
18 December 2002
FSL_04/49 Service Description for Systems POINQ0126645F I FUJ00120453
Management Service v.1.0
(withdrawn) dated 17 October 2011
FSL_04/50 Pathway SMC Operations Manual I POINQ0126193F I FUJ00120001
v.1.0 dated 28 February 1997
FSL_04/51 SMC Training Plan undated POINQ0126646F I FUJ00120454
FSL_04/52 SMC Training Timeline dated 26 I POINQ0126647F I FUJ00120455
November 2002
FSL_04/53 SMC Training Strategy undated POINQ0126648F I FUJ00120456
FSL_04/54 SMC Training Strategy dated POINQ0126649F I FUJ00120457
November 2002
FSL_04/55 Systems Management Service: POINQO126650F I FUJ00120458
Service Description v.1.0 dated 31
August 2006
FSL_04/56 Systems Management Service: POINQ0126651F I FUJ00120459
Service Description v.2.0 dated 26
August 2009
FSL_04/57 Systems Management Service: POINQ0126652F I FUJ00120460
Service Description v.3.0 dated 17
October 2013
FSL_04/58 Systems Management Service: POINQ0126653F I FUJ00120461
Service Description v.4.0 dated 16
April 2014
FSL_04/59 Systems Management Service: POINQ0126654F I FUJ00120462
Service Description v.5.0 dated 12
November 2015
Page 67 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/60
Systems Management Service:
Service Description v.6.0 dated 20
July 2017
POINQO126655F
FUJ00120463
FSL_04/61
ICL Pathway BSU Incident
Reconciliation Procedures for NR2
v.1.0 dated 2 November 1998
POINQ0126656F
FUJ00120464
FSL_04/62
ICL Pathway/POCL APS
Reconciliation Report Delivery
Process v.1.0 dated 10 August
1999
POINQ0126657F
FUJ00120465
FSL_04/63
CS Infrastructure Services
Operations Manual v.2.0 dated 21
September 1999
POINQ0064672F
FUJ00058501
FSL_04/64
CS Infrastructure Services
Operations Manual v.3.0 dated 18
February 2000
POINQ0064674F
FUJ00058503
FSL_04/65
Network Banking Reconciliation &
Incident Management v.1.0 dated
19 December 2001
POINQ0126658F
FUJ00120466
FSL_04/66
Network Banking Reconciliation &
Incident Management v.2.0 dated
21 January 2002
POINQ0126659F
FUJ00120467
FSL_04/67
Network Banking Reconciliation &
Incident Management v.5.0 dated
19 December 2002
POINQO126660F
FUJ00120468
FSL_04/68
TPS Reconciliation & Incident
Management v.1.0 dated 16
October 2000
POINQO085993F
FUJ00079822
FSL_04/69
TPS Reconciliation & Incident
Management v.2.0 dated 30 April
2002
POINQO0086052F
FUJ00079881
FSL_04/70
TPS Reconciliation & Incident
Management v.4.0 dated 19
December 2002
POINQO086055F
FUJ00079884
FSL_04/71
TPS Reconciliation & Incident
Management v.5.0 dated 17
October 2005
POINQ0086147F
FUJ00079976
FSL_04/72
On Line Services Reconciliation &
Incident Management v.6.0 dated
17 October 2005
POINQ0126661F
FUJ00120469
Page 68 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/73
Reconciliation Service: Service
Description v.1.0 dated 31 August
2006
POINQO086165F
FUJ00079994
FSL_04/74
Reconciliation Service: Service
Description v.2.0 dated 14 July
2009
POINQ0086244F
FUJ00080073
FSL_04/75
Reconciliation Service: Service
Description v.3.0 dated 1
December 2010
POINQ0086367F
FUJ00080196
FSL_04/76
Reconciliation Service: Service
Description v.4.0 dated 3
December 2013
POINQ0086425F
FUJ00080254
FSL_04/77
End to End Reconciliation
Reporting v.1.0 dated 2 February
2007
POINQ0086195F
FUJ00080024
FSL_04/78
End to End Reconciliation
Reporting v.2.0 dated 22 June
2011
POINQ0086384F
FUJ00080213
FSL_04/79
End to End Reconciliation
Reporting v.3.0 dated 4 May 2012
POINQ0086397F
FUJ00080226
FSL_04/80
End to End Reconciliation
Reporting v.4.0 dated 4 September
2017
POINQ0086557F
FUJ00080386
FSL_04/81
Reconciliation and Incident
Management Joint Working
Document v.2.0 dated 14 June
2011
POINQO086386F
FUJ00080215
FSL_04/82
Reconciliation and Incident
Management Joint Working
Document v.3.0 dated 30 April
2012
POINQO086395F
FUJ00080224
FSL_04/83
EDSC Call Management v.1.0
dated 13 January 1997
POINQ0124360F
FUJ00118126
FSL_04/84
Service Description for Third Line
Software Support Service v.1.0
dated 19 December 2002
POINQO126662F
FUJ00120470
FSL_04/85
Horizon Online 3rd Line Application
Support Service: Service
Description v.5.0 dated 24 May
2013
POINQO086405F
FUJ00080234
Page 69 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/86
End to End Support Process,
Operational Level Agreement v.2.0
dated 17 June 2003
POINQOO86068F
FUJ00079897
FSL_04/87
Email from John Simpkins with
subject "HSD Training" dated 3
May 2011
POINQ0126663F
FUJ00120471
FSL_04/88
Email from John Simpkins with
subject "HSD Training Rota - 1st
Changes" dated 3 May 2011
POINQO126664F
FUJ00120472
FSL_04/89
Application Support Service
(Fourth Line): Service Description
v.1.0 dated 24 August 2006
POINQ0086168F
FUJ00079997
FSL_04/90
Application Support Service
(Fourth Line): Service Description
v.3.0 dated 29 October 2009
POINQ0126665F
FUJ00120473
FSL_04/91
HNG-X Architecture - Customer
Services v.2.0 dated 23 November
2010
POINQ0126666F
FUJ00120474
FSL_04/92
POLSAP Hosting Service: Joint
Working Document v.1.0 dated 7
October 2010
POINQ0126667F
FUJ00120475
FSL_04/93
POLSAP Hosting Service: Joint
Working Document (Operational
Level Agreement) v.2.0 dated 4
November 2010
POINQO126668F
FUJ00120476
FSL_04/94
POLSAP Hosting Service: Joint
Working Document (Operational
Level Agreement) v.3.0 dated 6
March 2014
POINQ0126669F
FUJ00120477
FSL_04/95
Operational Level Agreement
HNGx 4th Line Support v.1.0 dated
14 January 2010
POINQ0086254F
FUJ00080083
FSL_04/96
Operational Level Agreement
HNGx Application 4th Line Support
v.2.0 dated 05 April 2013
POINQ0086403F
FUJ00080232
FSL_04/97
Application Support Service
(Fourth Line): Service Description
v.7.0 dated 29 November 2016
POINQO086550F
FUJ00080379
FSL_04/98
Application Support Service
(Fourth Line): Service Description
v.5.0 dated 13 September 2013
POINQO086406F
FUJ00080235
Page 70 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Engineer Service: Service
Description v.2.0 dated 15 May
2003
FSL_04/100
Engineering Service: Service
Description v.6.0 dated 29 October
2013
POINQ0086413F
FUJ00080242
FSL_04/101
Management Information Service:
Service Description v.1.0 dated 20
December 2002
POINQ0126671F
FUJ00120479
FSL_04/102
Management Information Service:
Service Description v.1.0 dated 31
August 2006
POINQ0126672F
FUJ00120480
FSL_04/103
ICL Pathway Problem
Management Process v.1.2 dated
25 May 1998
POINQO085968F
FUJ00079797
FSL_04/104
ICL Pathway Customer Service:
Information Systems and Process
Operations Manual v.1.0 dated 4
September 1998
POINQ0126673F
FUJ00120481
FSL_04/105
CS Infrastructure Services
Operations Manual v.1.0 dated 7
November 2000
POINQ0126187F
FUJ00119995
FSL_04/106
Fujitsu/POL Interface Agreement
for the Problem Management
Interface v.1.0 dated 23 December
2002
POINQO086057F
FUJ00079886
FSL_04/107
ICL Pathway Problem
Management Process v.2.0 dated
26 August 1999
POINQ0126183F
FUJ00119991
FSL_04/108
ICL Pathway Customer Service
Problem Management Process
v.3.0 dated 13 November 2000
POINQO086024F
FUJ00079853
FSL_04/109
ICL Pathway Customer Service
Problem and Alert Management
Process v.4.0 dated 27 November
2001
POINQ0126184F
FUJ00119992
FSL_04/110
POA Customer Service Problem
Management Process Details v.5.0
dated 20 January 2005
POINQ0086106F
FUJ00079935
Page 71 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/111
POA Customer Service Problem
Management Process Details v.6.0
dated 29 July 2005
POINQ0086124F
FUJ00079953
FSL_04/112
RMGA Customer Service Problem
Management Process v.2.0 dated
22 April 2008
POINQ0086214F
FUJ00080043
FSL_04/113
POA Customer Service Problem
Management Procedure v.3.0
dated 20 December 2013
POINQ0086426F
FUJ00080255
FSL_04/114
POA Customer Service Problem
Management Procedure v.4.0
dated 17 July 2014
POINQ0086477F
FUJ00080306
FSL_04/115
POA Customer Service Problem
Management Procedure v.5.0
dated 12 July 2016
POINQO086504F
FUJ00080333
FSL_04/116
ICL Pathway Field Service
Manager - Role Definition and
Overview v.0.1 dated 13
September 2000
POINQ0126215F
FUJ00120023
FSL_04/117
Recruitment Authorisation
Requirement: Field Service
Manager dated 13 February 2002
POINQ0126677F
FUJ00120485
FSL_04/118
ICL Pathway Field Service
Management Process v.1.0 dated
24 September 2001
POINQ0126219F
FUJ00120027
FSL_04/119
Operations Manual for Customer
Service Directorate v.1.1 dated 28
February 2002
POINQO086048F
FUJ00079877
FSL_04/120
CS Operational Services
Departmental Operations Manual
v.2.0 dated 24 January 2001
POINQ0126678F
FUJ00120486
FSL_04/121
Service Descriptions for Outlet
Change v.2.0 dated 7 July 1999
POINQ0126679F
FUJ00120487
FSL_04/122
Operational Business Change
(Branch Change) Service: Service
Description v.11.0 dated 5 October
2017
POINQO126680F
FUJ00120488
FSL_04/123
Pathway/Peritas Purchase
Agreement - Ref. No. PEO01 v.8.0
dated 15 July 1996
POINQ0126681F
FUJ00120489
Page 72 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Training Evaluation Paper v.2.0
dated 8 July 1999
FSL_04/125
Pathway Change Proposal No.
1294 dated 16 June 1998
POINQ0126682F
FUJ00120490
FSL_04/126
Training for Horizon Releases 1a
to 1e v.0.2 dated 28 July 1997
POINQ0125877F
FUJ00119685
FSL_04/127
Initial Go Live - Lessons Learnt
v.1.0 dated 12 November 1996
POINQ0064449F
FUJ00058278
FSL_04/128
Training Development & Sign Off
Document v.1.0 dated 27 October
1997
POINQ0126683F
FUJ00120491
FSL_04/129
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
31 August 2000
POINQO125898F
FUJ00119706
FSL_04/130
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
25 April 2000
POINQ0125899F
FUJ00119707
FSL_04/131
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
31 August 2000
POINQ0125900F
FUJ00119708
FSL_04/132
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
29 February 1999
POINQ0125901F
FUJ00119709
FSL_04/133
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
16 May 2000
POINQ0125902F
FUJ00119710
FSL_04/134
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
10 May 2001
POINQ0125903F
FUJ00119711
FSL_04/135
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
2 September 2000
POINQ0125904F
FUJ00119712
FSL_04/136
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
21 June 2000
POINQ0125905F
FUJ00119713
FSL_04/137
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
6 June 2000
POINQ0125306F
FUJ00119714
Page 73 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
23 June 2000
FUJO011971
FSL_04/139
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
16 January 2001
POINQ0125908F
FUJ00119716
FSL_04/140
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
28 February 2000
POINQ0125909F
FUJ00119717
FSL_04/141
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
17 January 2000
POINQ0125910F
FUJ00119718
FSL_04/142
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
12 January 2001
POINQ0125911F
FUJ00119719
FSL_04/143
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
29 February 2000
POINQ0125912F
FUJ00119720
FSL_04/144
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
2 April 2000
POINQ0125913F
FUJ00119721
FSL_04/145
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
19 April 2001
POINQ0125914F
FUJ00119722
FSL_04/146
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
14 March 2001
POINQ0125915F
FUJ00119723
FSL_04/147
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
10 August 2000
POINQ0125916F
FUJ00119724
FSL_04/148
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
22 June 2000
POINQ0125917F
FUJ00119725
FSL_04/149
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
22 June 2000
POINQ0125918F
FUJ00119726
FSL_04/150
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
20 June 2000
POINQ0125919F
FUJ00119727
Page 74 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
26 May 2000
FSL_04/152
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
25 May 2000
POINQ0125921F
FUJ00119729
FSL_04/153
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
16 March 2000
POINQ0125922F
FUJ00119730
FSL_04/154
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
10 March 2000
POINQ0125923F
FUJ00119731
FSL_04/155
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
9 March 2000
POINQ0125924F
FUJ00119732
FSL_04/156
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
26 May 2000
POINQ0125925F
FUJ00119733
FSL_04/157
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
29 August 2000
POINQ0125926F
FUJ00119734
FSL_04/158
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
14 February 2000
POINQ0125927F
FUJ00119735
FSL_04/159
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
8 February 2000
POINQ0125928F
FUJ00119736
FSL_04/160
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
23 August 2000
POINQ0125929F
FUJ00119737
FSL_04/161
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
8 February 2000
POINQ0125930F
FUJ00119738
FSL_04/162
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
29 August 2000
POINQ0125931F
FUJ00119739
FSL_04/163
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
18 July 2000
POINQ0125932F
FUJ00119740
Page 75 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
17 July 2000
FSL_04/165
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
30 March 2000
POINQ0125934F
FUJ00119742
FSL_04/166
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
18 July 2000
POINQ0125935F
FUJ00119743
FSL_04/167
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
20 July 2000
POINQ0125936F
FUJ00119744
FSL_04/168
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
29 March 2000
POINQ0125937F
FUJ00119745
FSL_04/169
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
24 July 2000
POINQ0125938F
FUJ00119746
FSL_04/170
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
25 September 1999
POINQ0125939F
FUJ00119747
FSL_04/171
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
21 July 2000
POINQ0125940F
FUJ00119748
FSL_04/172
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
24 July 2000
POINQ0125941F
FUJ00119749
FSL_04/173
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
23 June 2000
POINQ0125942F
FUJ00119750
FSL_04/174
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
22 July 1999
POINQ0125943F
FUJ00119751
FSL_04/175
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
27 January 2000
POINQ0125944F
FUJ00119752
FSL_04/176
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
19 June 2000
POINQ0125945F
FUJ00119753
Page 76 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
24 June 2000
FUJO0119754
FSL_04/178
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
16 June 2000
POINQ0125947F
FUJ00119755
FSL_04/179
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
15 June 2000
POINQ0125948F
FUJ00119756
FSL_04/180
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
24 January 2000
POINQ0125949F
FUJ00119757
FSL_04/181
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
31 May 2000
POINQ0125950F
FUJ00119758
FSL_04/182
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
7 September 1999
POINQ0125951F
FUJ00119759
FSL_04/183
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
1 June 2000
POINQ0125952F
FUJ00119760
FSL_04/184
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
30 May 2000
POINQ0125953F
FUJ00119761
FSL_04/185
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
30 May 2000
POINQ0125954F
FUJ00119762
FSL_04/186
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
1 June 2000
POINQ0125955F
FUJ00119763
FSL_04/187
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
2 November 2000
POINQ0125956F
FUJ00119764
FSL_04/188
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
3 November 2000
POINQ0125957F
FUJ00119765
FSL_04/189
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
1 November 2000
POINQ0125958F
FUJ00119766
Page 77 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
4 August 2000
FSL_04/191
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
27 July 2000
POINQ0125960F
FUJ00119768
FSL_04/192
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
10 November 2000
POINQ0125961F
FUJ00119769
FSL_04/193
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
25 November 1999
POINQ0125962F
FUJ00119770
FSL_04/194
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
10 June 1999
POINQ0125963F
FUJ00119771
FSL_04/195
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
5 October 2000
POINQ0125964F
FUJ00119772
FSL_04/196
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
9 October 2000
POINQ0125965F
FUJ00119773
FSL_04/197
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
26 October 2000
POINQ0125966F
FUJ00119774
FSL_04/198
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
28 September 2000
POINQ0125967F
FUJ00119775
FSL_04/199
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
3 October 2000
POINQ0125968F
FUJ00119776
FSL_04/200
ICL Pathway Horizon Training
Programme Evaluation Form dated
4 October 2000
POINQ0125969F
FUJ00119777
FSL_04/201
Training Needs Analysis for the
BA/POCL Counter Automation
Project v.1.0 dated 19 March 1997
POINQ0007447F
FUJ00001276
FSL_04/202
Horizon Training Workbook 4 -
EPOSS 3 Scales Horizon System
v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123891F
FUJ00117719
FSL_04/203
Horizon Training Workbook 6 -
APS Automated Payment Service
POINQ0123892F
FUJ00117720
Page 78 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Horizon System v.1.0 dated 24
July 2000
FSL_04/204
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - Moveable Solution
Horizon System v.1.0 dated 6
September 2000
POINQ0123902F
FUJ00117730
FSL_04/205
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - Balancing using the
Horizon System v.1.0 dated 23
July 2000
POINQ0123893F
FUJ00117721
FSL_04/206
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - Help & basic
Maintenance Horizon System v.1.0
dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123894F
FUJ00117722
FSL_04/207
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - EPOSS 2 Horizon
System v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123895F
FUJ00117723
FSL_04/208
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - Functions Horizon
System v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123896F
FUJ00117724
FSL_04/209
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - EPOSS 1 Horizon
System v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123897F
FUJ00117725
FSL_04/210
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - OBCS Order Book
Control Service Horizon System
v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123898F
FUJ00117726
FSL_04/211
Horizon Training Workbook
Addendum - Introduction to the
Horizon System v.1.0 dated 24
July 2000
POINQ0123899F
FUJ00117727
FSL_04/212
Horizon Training Workbook 9 -
Office Administration Horizon
System v.1.0 dated 24 July 2000
POINQ0123900F
FUJ00117728
FSL_04/213
Pathway Change Proposal No.
1292 dated 16 June 1998
POINQ0126684F
FUJ00120492
FSL_04/214
Training and User Awareness
Baseline Document v.3.0 dated 12
June 1998
POINQ0125850F
FUJ00119658
FSL_04/215
Split Implementation Programme
Strategy v.1.0 dated 30 June 1998
POINQO126685F
FUJ00120493
Page 79 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
1c to Release 2 Training Strategy
v.1.0 dated 18 March 1999
FUJ00120494
FSL_04/217
Management Infrastructure Brief -
Change Process v.1.0 dated 23
April 1999
POINQ0126687F
FUJ00120495
FSL_04/218
User Awareness Event - Change
Process v.1.0 dated 14 May 1999
POINQ0126688F
FUJ00120496
FSL_04/219
Horizon User Awareness Event
v.1.0 dated 27 May 1998
POINQ0125876F
FUJ00119684
FSL_04/220
ICL Pathway Change Control Note
(CCN) No. 487b dated 13
September 1999
POINQO126689F
FUJ00120497
FSL_04/221
Training Scheduling and Minimum
Training Compliance v.3.0 dated
21 March 2001
POINQ0125886F
FUJ00119694
FSL_04/222
ICL Pathway Implementation
PowerPoint v.1.0 dated 02
February 2001
POINQ0126690F
FUJ00120498
FSL_04/223
Training and User Awareness
Baseline Document v.11.0 dated
29 November 1999
POINQ0007528F
FUJ00001357
FSL_04/224
Training Workbook Change
Process v.1.0 dated 15 August
2000
POINQ0126693F
FUJ00120501
FSL_04/225
Standard Reports and Formats
v.3.0 dated 3 December 1999
POINQ0007531F
FUJ00001360
FSL_04/226
Training and User Awareness
Baseline Document v.2.2 dated 26
March 1998
POINQ0126694F
FUJ00120502
FSL_04/227
PON Auditors & Investigators
Course v.1.0 dated 14 September
2000
POINQO126695F
FUJ00120503
FSL_04/228
Horizon Field Support Officer
Migration Training Requirements
v.0.1 dated 29 June 1998
POINQ0126696F
FUJ00120504
FSL_04/229
Letter from Bruce McNiven to John
Hicks re: Review of Acceptance
Incident 218 - Training
POL00029130
Page 80 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/230
Acceptance Proposal for
Acceptance Incident 218 v.1.0
dated 23 August 1999
POINQO068757F
FUJ00079169
FSL_04/231
ICL Pathway Change Control Note
(CCN) No. 519a dated 16 July
1999
POINQ0126697F
FUJ00120505
FSL_04/232
ICL Pathway Change Proposal No.
2081 dated 8 July 1999
POINQO126698F
FUJ00120506
FSL_04/233
Letter from Bruce McNiven to John
Dicks re Review of Acceptance
Incident 218
POL00028365
FSL_04/234
“Meeting Output” concerning
Acceptance Incidents discussed at
meeting on 11 August 1999
POL00028360
FSL_04/235
Horizon Programme, Management
Resolution Meeting Minutes
POL00028332
FSL_04/236
Specification of Pre-Entry Event
v.1.1 dated 25 October 1999
POINQ0126699F
FUJ00120507
FSL_04/237
Supplemental Agreement between
POCL and ICL Pathway dated 20
August 1999
POINQ0125799F
FUJ00119606
FSL_04/238
Second Supplemental Agreement
between POCL and ICL Pathway
Limited dated 24 September 1999
POINQ0124313F
FUJ00118149
FSL_04/239
Resolution Plan for Acceptance
Incident 218 v.0.5 dated 23
September 1999
POINQ0125805F
FUJ00119612
FSL_04/240
Amended Process for Presenting
the Performance Standards
Assessment v.1.0 dated 8 October
1999
POINQ0126700F
FUJ00120508
FSL_04/241
ICL Pathway Progress Summary
for Input to Horizon/Pathway
Delivery Meeting dated 24
November 1999
POINQ0124345F
FUJ00118181
FSL_04/242
Monitoring of Trainer Quality v.1.0
dated 17 September 1999
POINQ0126701F
FUJ00120509
FSL_04/243
ICL Pathway Progress Summary
for Input to Horizon/Pathway
POINQ0124400F
FUJ00118201
Page 81 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
‘Delivery Meeting dated 8
December 1999
FSL_04/244
Performance Review Report for
Acceptance Incident 218 v.1.0
dated 2 December 1999
POINQ0068774F
FUJ00079186
FSL_04/245
ICL Pathway Change Proposal No.
2650 dated 4 July 2000
POINQ0126702F
FUJ00120510
FSL_04/246
ICL Pathway Change Control Note
(CCN) No. 731 dated 23 November
2000
POINQ0006816F
FUJ00000645
FSL_04/247
Onsite and Combined CM/CA
Course Specification Document
v.1.0 dated 21 March 2001
POINQ0125881F
FUJ00119689
FSL_04/248
ICL Pathway Change Proposal No.
2372 dated 20 December 1999
POINQ0126703F
FUJ00120511
FSL_04/249
ICL Pathway Change Control Note
(CCN) No. 620 dated 9 March
2000
POINQ0126704F
FUJ00120512
FSL_04/250
Letter from John Cook to Liam
Foley dated 20 January 2000
POINQ0126705F
FUJ00120513
FSL_04/251
Letter from Liam Foley to John
Cook dated 4 February 2000
enclosing copy of letter from Tim
Marsh to Sue Smith dated 18
November 1999
POINQ0126706F
FUJ00120514
FSL_04/252
Management Care Visit Program
v.1.0 dated 18 December 2001
POINQ0064677F
FUJ00058506
FSL_04/253
ICL Pathway Customer Service:
Service Management Operations
Manual v.1.0 dated 24 August
1998
POINQO064667F
FUJ00058496
FSL_04/254
Pathway Monthly Report - August
1997 v.1.0 dated 12 September
1997
POINQ0064334F
FUJ00058163
FSL_04/255
Pathway Monthly Report -
November 1997 v.1.0 dated 16
December 1997
POINQ0064336F
FUJ00058165
FSL_04/256
Pathway Monthly Report -
December 1997 v.1.0 dated 14
January 1998
POINQ0064337F
FUJ00058 166
Page 82 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Pathway Monthly Report -
September 1998 v.1.0 dated 22
October 1998
FSL_04/258
Customer Service Monthly Report -
July 2001 v.1.0 dated 31 July 2001
POINQ0126708F
FUJ00120516
FSL_04/259
Management Care Visit Program
Aide Memoir undated
POINQ0126263F
FUJ00120071
FSL_04/260
The BED Report
POL00030528
FSL_04/261
RMGA HNG Pilot Daily Month to
Date Extract September 2010
dated 20 September 2010
POINQ0087279F
FUJ00081108
FSL_04/262
Spreadsheet recording position at
affected branches and POLSAP in
relation to BED 1 dated in
December 2010
POINQ0O087692F
FUJ00081521
FSL_04/263
Email chain from M. Stewart to G.
Jenkins, M. Wright and S. Bansal
with subject " FW: EMMA RE:
Receipts Missmatch Issue" dated 1
October 2010
POINQ0087308F
FUJ00081137
FSL_04/264
Document titled "Correcting
Accounts for "lost" Discrepancies"
dated 28 September 2010
POINQ0087310F
FUJ00081 139
FSL_04/265
Document titled
"Receipts/Payments Mismatch
issue notes" dated in October 2010
POINQ0087755F
FUJ00081584
FSL_04/266
Email chain from G. Jenkins to J.
Simpkins and M. Wirght with M.
Stewart and S. Salawu in copy with
subject "RE: Branches affected by
Receipts Payments and
Discrepancies issue" dated 6
October 2010
POINQ0087384F
FUJ00081213
FSL_04/267
Email from M. Wright to ‘Duty
Manager’ Royal Mail with M.
Woolgar, M. Stewart, G. Jenkins
and S. Parker in copy with subject
"Receipts and Payment Mismatch
update 09/12/2010" dated 9
December 2010
POINQ0087390F
FUJ00081219
FSL_04/268
Email from M. Stewart to M.
Wright, G. Jenkins and S. Bansal
POINQ0087298F
FUJ00081127
Page 83 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
with subject "RE: Receipts &
Payments." dated 29 September
2010
FSL_04/269
Email chain from M. Woolgar to M.
Wright, G. Jenkins and J. Simpkins
with M. Stewart in copy with
subject "RE: Receipts and
Payments issue" dated 12
November 2010
POINQ0087385F
FUJ00081214
FSL_04/270
Email chain from S. Salawu to M.
Woolgar and M. Lowther with
subject "FW: Receipts and
Payments issue" dated 11
November 2010.
POINQ0087381F
FUJ00081210
FSL_04/271
Service Management Review
PowerPoint dated in October 2010
POINQ0127243F
FUJ00121051
FSL_04/272
Service Management Review
PowerPoint dated in November
2010
POINQ0127255F
FUJ00121063
FSL_04/273
Report titled "Receipts and
Payments Mismatch" dated 17
February 2011
POINQ0087713F
FUJ00081542
FSL_04/274
Document titled "Receipts and
Payments Mismatch" dated 11
February 2011
POINQ0127262F
FUJ00121070
FSL_04/275
Report titled "Receipts and
Payments Mismatch" dated 25
February 2011
POINQ0087721F
FUJ00081550
FSL_04/276
Email chain from William Russell to
T. Atkinson with subject "RE:
Receipts & Payments Issue" dated
22 February 2011.
POINQ0087716F
FUJ00081545
FSL_04/277
Post Office account Release Note
RNT9622 dated in November
2010.
POINQ0087723F
FUJ00081552
FSL_04/278
Email chain from M. Stewart to A.
Chambers with subject "RE:
Callendar Square - FAD 160868"
dated 23 February 2006
POINQ0089943F
FUJ00083772
FSL_04/279
$90 Release Note v.1.0 dated 13
January 2006
POINQO089978F
FUJ00083807
Page 84 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
"Email chain from C. Broe to G. Bell I
with no subject, dated 11
November 2015
FUJO0085862
FSL_04/281
Email chain from P. Newsome to
S. Bansal and G. Bell copying C.
Dunford and P. Thompson, with
subject "RE: The Dalmellington
Error in Horizon / problemswithpol"
dated 11 July 2016
POINQ0092138F
FUJ00085967
FSL_04/282
Email from P. Newsome to A. Van
den Bogerd copying C. Broe, S.
Bansal and P. Thompson with
subject "Actions and Slides", dated
23 November 2015
POINQ0092054F
FUJ00085883
FSL_04/283
Slide deck titled "Out Reach
Branch Issue" dated 23 November
2015
POINQO092055F
FUJ00085884
FSL_04/284
Email chain from P. Newsome to
A. Van den Bogerd copying C.
Broe, P. Thompson and G. Bell
with subject "FW: Updated
Presentation and Actions Tracker"
dated 25 November 2011
POINQO092059F
FUJ00085888
FSL_04/285
Document titled "Outreach Actions
Tracker" dated 25 November 2011
POINQO092060F
FUJ00085889
FSL_04/286
Email from P. Newsome to A. Van
den Bogerd copying C. Broe, P.
Thompson, S. Bansal, C. Dunford
and G. Bell with subject "Updates
on Branch Outreach" dated 11
December 2015
POINQ0092072F
FUJ00085901
FSL_04/287
Slide deck titled "Branch Outreach
Issue" dated 10 December 2015
POINQ0092073F
FUJ00085902
FSL_04/288
Spreadsheet titled "Outreach
Actions Tracker" dated 11
December 2015
POINQ0092074F
FUJ00085903
FSL_04/289
Slide deck titled "Branch Outreach
Issue (Initial Findings)" dated 10
December 2015
POINQ0092075F
FUJ00085904
FSL_04/290
Document titled "Automatic
Settlement and Log Off" dated 11
December 2015
POINQ0092076F
FUJ00085905
Page 85 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Document titled "OCR Further
Investigation - Component Test
Plan" v.0.1 dated 15 January 2016
FSL_04/292
Email chain from I. Oakley to G.
Jenkins with subject line "RE: Fw:
T30 Release - Impact on Stock
Rems" dated 16 February 2007
POINQ0127263F
FUJ00121071
FSL_04/293
Email chain from G. Jenkins to G.
Blackburn with subject line "RE:
Rem Misbalance" dated 13
February 2007
POINQ0127264F
FUJ00121072
FSL_04/294
Report entitled "Rem Misbalance"
dated 13 February 2007
POINQ0127265F
FUJ00121073
FSL_04/295
Email chain from I. Trundell to G.
Jenkins with subject line "RE: Rem
Misbalance" dated 14 February
2007
POINQ0127266F
FUJ00121074
FSL_04/296
Service Review Book for February
2007 dated 14 March 2007
POINQ0127267F
FUJ00121075
FSL_04/297
OCR 26169 dated 29 March 2010
POINQ0127268F
FUJ00121076
FSL_04/298
Email chain from G. Jenkins to B.
Evans with subject line "RE: BTS
issues 14/04/10" dated 29 April
2010
POINQ0127269F
FUJ00121077
FSL_04/299
Report entitled "LocalSuspense"
POINQ0127270F
FUJ00121078
FSL_04/300
Report entitled "HNG-X Issues that
Impact P&BA" and dated 4 June
2010
POINQ0127272F
FUJ00121080
FSL_04/301
Release Note for RNT9612 dated
11 March 2010
POINQ0127273F
FUJ00121081
FSL_04/302
Report entitled "HNG-X Issues that
Impact P&BA" and dated 4 June
2010
POINQ0127274F
FUJ00121082
FSL_04/303
Email chain from C. Drake to A.
Chambers with subject line "RE:
Recovery into wrong TP/BP" dated
26 May 2010
POINQ0127275F
FUJ00121083
FSL_04/304
Service Review - Performance
Statistics for August 2000 dated on
14 August 2000
POINQ0064402F
FUJ00058231
Page 86 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/305 Minutes of the Release POINQ0127277F I FUJ00121085
Management Forum on 20
December 2000
FSL_04/306 Service Review dated 17 April POINQ0127278F I FUJ00121086
2001
FSL_04/307 Service Review dated 15 May POINQ0127279F I FUJ00121087
2001
FSL_04/308 Email chain from SSC Duty POINQ0127090F I FUJ00120898
Manager to
PC0241528@peak2.fs.fujitsu.com
with subject "POL Approval - Lydd
145925 - 16809429 I A7700407"
dated 20 March 2015
FSL_04/309 BIMS Incident Report - POINQ0127285F I FUJ00121093
BE/0203215 dated 24 August 2010
FSL_04/310 BIMS report - BE/0203284 dated POINQ0127288F I FUJ00121096
25 August 2010
FSL_04/311 PC0194381 POINQ0087235F I FUJ00081064
FSL_04/312 PC0204263 POINQ0087333F I FUJ00081162
FSL_04/313 PC0204765 POINQ0087364F I FUJ00081193
FSL_04/314 ballant/1759Q POINQ0087736F I FUJ00081565
FSL_04/315 PC0203864 POINQ0087757F I FUJ00081586
FSL_04/316 wrightm33145J POINQ0087779F I FUJ00081608
FSL_04/317 PC0012751 POINQ0024157F I FUJ00017986
FSL_04/318 PC0032835 POINQ0038084F I FUJ00031913
FSL_04/319 JBallantyne5245K POINQ0065220F I FUJ00059049
FSL_04/320 PC0056922 POINQO079496F I FUJO0070841
FSL_04/321 PC0057981 POINQ0080557F I FUJ00071767
FSL_04/322 PC0057957 POINQ0081198F I FUJ00072379
FSL_04/323 PC0058994 POINQ0085136F I FUJ00075544
FSL_04/324 PC0075892 POINQO089796F I FUJ00083625
FSL_04/325 PC0083101 POINQ0089802F I FUJ00083631
FSL_04/326 PC0083563 POINQ0089804F I FUJ00083633
FSL_04/327 PC0104233 POINQ0089813F I FUJ00083642
Page 87 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/328 PC0103925 POINQ0089814F I FUJ00083643
FSL_04/329 PC0103864 POINQ0089815F I FUJ00083644
FSL_04/330 PC0106213 POINQ0089816F I FUJ00083645
FSL_04/331 PC0111976 POINQ0089817F I FUJ00083646
FSL_04/332 PC0116670 POINQO089820F I FUJ00083649
FSL_04/333 PC0117083 POINQ0089821F I FUJ00083650
FSL_04/334 PC0086212 POINQ0089822F I FUJ00083651
FSL_04/335 PC0101472 POINQ0089823F I FUJ00083652
FSL_04/336 PC0126042 POINQO089825F I FUJ00083654
FSL_04/337 PC0122035 POINQ0089832F I FUJ00083661
FSL_04/338 PC0126376 POINQ0089834F I FUJ00083663
FSL_04/339 PC0127246 POINQO089838F I FUJ00083667
FSL_04/340 PC0193012 POINQO089890F I FUJ00083719
FSL_04/341 JSimpkins338Q POINQO0089891F I FUJ00083720
FSL_04/342 PC0078592 POINQ0126710F I FUJ00120518
FSL_04/343 PC0224126 POINQOO90909F I FUJ00084738
FSL_04/344 PC0223870 POINQ0091023F I FUJ00084852
FSL_04/345 PC0246949 POINQ0092002F I FUJ00085831
FSL_04/346 Acha621P. POINQ0092004F I FUJ00085833
FSL_04/347 PC0247207 POINQ0092014F I FUJ00085843
FSL_04/348 PC0247250 POINQ0092017F I FUJ00085846
FSL_04/349 PC0246997 POINQ0092084F I FUJ00085913
FSL_04/350 Acha621P. POINQO092095F I FUJ00085924
FSL_04/351 PC0248024 POINQ0092152F I FUJ00085981
FSL_04/352 PC0246997 POINQ0092243F I FUJ00086072
FSL_04/353 PC0195911 POINQ0087737F I FUJ00081566
FSL_04/354 PC0195511 POINQ0126711F I FUJ00120519
FSL_04/355 PC0196154 POINQ0126712F I FUJ00120520
FSL_04/356 PC0196120 POINQ0126713F I FUJ00120521
FSL_04/357 PC0196671 POINQ0126714F I FUJ00120522
Page 88 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/358 PC0197753 POINQ0126716F I FUJ00120524
FSL_04/359 PC0197605 POINQ0126718F I FUJ00120526
FSL_04/360 PC0197828 POINQ0126719F I FUJ00120527
FSL_04/361 PC0197838 POINQ0126721F I FUJ00120529
FSL_04/362 PC0197034 POINQ0126723F I FUJ00120531
FSL_04/363 PC0197837 POINQ0126726F I FUJ00120534
FSL_04/364 PC0197873 POINQ0126728F I FUJ00120536
FSL_04/365 PC0197032 POINQ0126730F I FUJ00120538
FSL_04/366 PC0197872 POINQ0126732F I FUJ00120540
FSL_04/367 PC0197651 POINQ0126734F I FUJ00120542
FSL_04/368 PC0195380 POINQ0126736F I FUJ00120544
FSL_04/369 PC0198115 POINQ0126748F I FUJ00120556
FSL_04/370 acha4221Q POINQ0126750F I FUJ00120558
FSL_04/371 PC0207466 POINQ0126751F I FUJ00120559
FSL_04/372 PC0203085 POINQ0126755F I FUJ00120563
FSL_04/373 acha4221Q POINQ0126761F I FUJ00120569
FSL_04/374 PC0226230 POINQ0126762F I FUJ00120570
FSL_04/375 PC0246629 POINQ0126763F I FUJ00120571
FSL_04/376 PC0251952 POINQ0126764F I FUJ00120572
FSL_04/377 GMaxwell3853P POINQ0126765F I FUJ00120573
FSL_04/378 PC0120937 POINQ0126766F I FUJ00120574
FSL_04/379 PC0143501 POINQ0126767F I FUJ00120575
FSL_04/380 PC0143466 POINQ0126768F I FUJ00120576
FSL_04/381 PC0143439 POINQ0126769F I FUJ00120577
FSL_04/382 PC0143499 POINQ0126770F I FUJ00120578
FSL_04/383 PC0143441 POINQ0126771F I FUJ00120579
FSL_04/384 PC0143539 POINQ0126772F I FUJ00120580
FSL_04/385 PC0143440 POINQ0126773F I FUJ00120581
FSL_04/386 PC0143514 POINQ0126774F I FUJ00120582
FSL_04/387 PC0143506 POINQ0126775F I FUJ00120583
Page 89 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/388 PC0143515 POINQ0126776F I FUJ00120584
FSL_04/389 PC0143513 POINQ0126777F I FUJ00120585
FSL_04/390 PC0143508 POINQ0126778F I FUJ00120586
FSL_04/391 acha508S POINQ0126779F I FUJ00120587
FSL_04/392 PC0143500 POINQ0126780F I FUJ00120588
FSL_04/393 PC0143511 POINQ0126781F I FUJ00120589
FSL_04/394 PC0143507 POINQ0126783F I FUJ00120591
FSL_04/395 PC0143502 POINQ0126784F I FUJ00120592
FSL_04/396 PC0143503 POINQ0126785F I FUJ00120593
FSL_04/397 PC0143682 POINQ0126786F I FUJ00120594
FSL_04/398 PC0143504 POINQ0126787F I FUJ00120595
FSL_04/399 PC0144933 POINQ0126788F I FUJ00120596
FSL_04/400 PC0140829 POINQ0126789F I FUJ00120597
FSL_04/401 PC0143435 POINQ0126790F I FUJ00120598
FSL_04/402 PC0140826 POINQ0126791F I FUJ00120599
FSL_04/403 PC0144937 POINQ0126792F I FUJ00120600
FSL_04/404 GCSimpson1936L POINQ0126793F I FUJ00120601
FSL_04/405 maxwellg460L POINQ0126794F I FUJ00120602
FSL_04/406 PC0198077 POINQO090840F I FUJ00084669
FSL_04/407 PC0198259 POINQ0102175F I FUJ00096004
FSL_04/408 cardc2043L POINQ0126795F I FUJ00120603
FSL_04/409 PC0197756 POINQ0126796F I FUJ00120604
FSL_04/410 PC0197800 POINQ0126797F I FUJ00120605
FSL_04/411 PC0197758 POINQ0126798F I FUJ00120606
FSL_04/412 PorterS199P POINQ0126799F I FUJ00120607
FSL_04/413 Acha5259Q (v1) POINQ0126800F I FUJ00120608
FSL_04/414 PC0198066 POINQ0126801F I FUJ00120609
FSL_04/415 PC0197797 POINQ0126802F I FUJ00120610
FSL_04/416 Acha5259Q (v2) POINQ0126804F I FUJ00120612
FSL_04/417 PC0198677 POINQ0126805F I FUJ00120613
Page 90 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/418 PC0198678 POINQ0126808F I FUJ00120616
FSL_04/419 PC0199719 POINQ0126809F I FUJ00120617
FSL_04/420 PC0196767 POINQ0126810F I FUJ00120618
FSL_04/421 PC0197409 POINQ0126819F I FUJ00120627
FSL_04/422 cardc2043L POINQ0126826F I FUJ00120634
FSL_04/423 PC0204497 POINQ0126827F I FUJ00120635
FSL_04/424 PC0204396 POINQ0126828F I FUJ00120636
FSL_04/425 PC0197261 POINQ0126830F I FUJ00120638
FSL_04/426 dsed2640M POINQ0126838F I FUJ00120646
FSL_04/427 PC0198352 POINQ0126839F I FUJ00120647
FSL_04/428 PC0197769 POINQ0126848F I FUJ00120656
FSL_04/429 PC0193463 POINQ0126860F I FUJ00120668
FSL_04/430 cardc464Q POINQ0126861F I FUJ00120669
FSL_04/431 achaS650L POINQ0126862F I FUJ00120670
FSL_04/432 PC0223229 POINQ0126863F I FUJ00120671
FSL_04/433 dsed4010N POINQO126866F I FUJ00120674
FSL_04/434 PC0256502 POINQ0126867F I FUJ00120675
FSL_04/435 PC0256566 POINQ0126870F I FUJ00120678
FSL_04/436 seng2048K POINQ0126871F I FUJ00120679
FSL_04/437 PC0264632 POINQ0126872F I FUJ00120680
FSL_04/438 PC0277508 POINQ0126873F I FUJ00120681
FSL_04/439 acha9S9T POINQ0126876F I FUJ00120684
FSL_04/440 PC0089918 POINQ0126877F I FUJ00120685
FSL_04/441 PC003s0109 POINQO126886F I FUJ00120694
FSL_04/442 PC0091284 POINQ0126888F I FUJ00120696
FSL_04/443 PSteed2847N POINQ0126889F I FUJ00120697
FSL_04/444 PC0043811 POINQO069461F I FUJ00062016
FSL_04/445 PC0046811 POINQ0074762F I FUJOO066601
FSL_04/446 PC0033128 POINQ0080947F I FUJ00072143
FSL_04/447 PC0123319 POINQ0092553F I FUJ00086382
Page 91 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/448 PC0123647 POINQ0092557F I FUJ00086386
FSL_04/449 PC0132133 POINQ0092627F I FUJ00086456
FSL_04/450 PC0121925 POINQ0092638F I FUJ00086467
FSL_04/451 MScardifield2219S POINQO092659F I FUJ00086488
FSL_04/452 PC0039313 POINQ0126890F I FUJ00120698
FSL_04/453 PC0043685 POINQ0049678F I FUJ00043507
FSL_04/454 PC0045509 POINQ0050444F I FUJ00044273
FSL_04/455 PC0047609 POINQ0052150F I FUJ00045979
FSL_04/456 PC0044101 POINQ0052241F I FUJ00046070
FSL_04/457 PC0040754 POINQ0052393F I FUJ00046222
FSL_04/458 PC0048630 POINQ0052564F I FUJ00046393
FSL_04/459 PC0044232 POINQO069638F I FUJ00062193
FSL_04/460 PC0050418 POINQO070826F I FUJ00063277
FSL_04/461 PC0050415 POINQO070844F I FUJ00063295
FSL_04/462 PC0052804 POINQ0074322F I FUJ00066305
FSL_04/463 PC0052704 POINQ0074367F I FUJ00066341
FSL_04/464 PC0052320 POINQ0074401F I FUJ00066372
FSL_04/465 PC0052575 POINQ0074843F I FUJOO0066669
FSL_04/466 PC0053975 POINQO075816F I FUJ00067376
FSL_04/467 PC0054846 POINQO076876F I FUJ00068300
FSL_04/468 PC0054973 POINQ0077113F I FUJ00068526
FSL_04/469 PCO0056661 POINQ0078716F I FUJ00070073
FSL_04/470 PC0056915 POINQ0078937F I FUJ00070288
FSL_04/471 PCO0S6960 POINQ0079037F I FUJ00070388
FSL_04/472 PC0050861 POINQO080765F I FUJ00071966
FSL_04/473 PC0068442 POINQ0126891F I FUJ00120699
FSL_04/474 PC0068633 POINQ0126892F I FUJ00120700
FSL_04/475 PC0075312 POINQ0126893F I FUJ00120701
FSL_04/476 PCO076065 POINQ0126894F I FUJ00120702
FSL_04/477 PC0073855 POINQ0126895F I FUJ00120703
Page 92 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/478 DRowe440R POINQ0126896F I FUJ00120704
FSL_04/479 JBallantyneS328R POINQ0065257F I FUJ00059086
FSL_04/480 PC0051255 POINQO078047F I FUJ00069436
FSL_04/481 PC0058528 POINQ0081357F I FUJ00072538
FSL_04/482 PCO0S8686 POINQ0082546F I FUJ00073490
FSL_04/483 PC0052823 POINQ0085212F I FUJ00075614
FSL_04/484 PC0071836 POINQ0126897F I FUJ00120705
FSL_04/485 PC0078204 POINQ0126898F I FUJ00120706
FSL_04/486 PC0064574 POINQ0126899F I FUJ00120707
FSL_04/487 PC0133822 POINQ0126900F I FUJ00120708
FSL_04/488 PC0138926 POINQ0126901F I FUJ00120709
FSL_04/489 PC0153851 POINQ0126902F I FUJ00120710
FSL_04/490 PC0153660 POINQ0126903F I FUJ00120711
FSL_04/491 DRowe4629L POINQ0126904F I FUJ00120712
FSL_04/492 PothapragadaC4913L POINQ0126805F I FUJ00120713
FSL_04/493 PC0200502 POINQ0126906F I FUJ00120714
FSL_04/494 PC0207834 POINQ0126918F I FUJ00120726
FSL_04/495 PC0208918 POINQ0126922F I FUJ00120730
FSL_04/496 PC0205404 POINQ0126923F I FUJ00120731
FSL_04/497 PC0209602 POINQ0126925F I FUJ00120733
FSL_04/498 pothapragadac4359R POINQ0126934F I FUJ00120742
FSL_04/499 PC0208292 POINQ0126935F I FUJ00120743
FSL_04/500 PC0261710 POINQ0126947F I FUJ00120755
FSL_04/501 PC0265443 POINQ0126948F I FUJ00120756
FSL_04/502 PC0261541 POINQ0126985F I FUJ00120793
FSL_04/503 PC0277076 POINQ0126988F I FUJ00120796
FSL_04/504 PC0051108 POINQO071802F I FUJ00064193
FSL_04/505 PC0052025 POINQO073096F I FUJ00065316
FSL_04/506 PC0063755 POINQ0092841F I FUJ00086670
FSL_04/507 PC0064809 POINQ0092843F I FUJ00086672
Page 93 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/508 PC0064922 POINQ0092845F I FUJ00086674
FSL_04/509 PC0065021 POINQ0092851F I FUJ00086680
FSL_04/510 PC0044966 POINQ0051383F I FUJ00045212
FSL_04/511 PC0040243 POINQO071037F I FUJ00063485
FSL_04/512 PC0047955 POINQO072865F I FUJ00065135
FSL_04/513 PC0045529 POINQ0073032F I FUJ00065277
FSL_04/514 PC0049578 POINQ0073244F I FUJ00065453
FSL_04/515 PC0045847 POINQ0073611F I FUJO0065695
FSL_04/516 PC0039832 POINQO073930F I FUJO0065960
FSL_04/517 PC0204872 POINQ0087299F I FUJ00081128
FSL_04/518 PC0075240 POINQ0127038F I FUJ00120846
FSL_04/519 PC0077253 POINQ0127039F I FUJ00120847
FSL_04/520 PC0075415 POINQ0127040F I FUJ00120848
FSL_04/521 PC0076869 POINQ0127041F I FUJ00120849
FSL_04/522 PC0077508 POINQ0127042F I FUJ00120850
FSL_04/523 PC0236246 POINQ0127060F I FUJ00120868
FSL_04/524 AllenD443311 POINQ0127061F I FUJ00120869
FSL_04/525 PC0156174 POINQ0127062F I FUJ00120870
FSL_04/526 PC0156246 POINQ0127063F I FUJ00120871
FSL_04/527 PC0051813 POINQ0073107F I FUJ00065327
FSL_04/528 PC0051485 POINQ0073880F I FUJ00065928
FSL_04/529 PC0051327 POINQ0081116F I FUJ00072297
FSL_04/530 PCO059635 POINQ0081871F I FUJ00072951
FSL_04/531 PC0027581 POINQO085155F I FUJ00075563
FSL_04/532 PC0219432 POINQ0127064F I FUJ00120872
FSL_04/533 PC0220393 POINQ0127065F I FUJ00120873
FSL_04/534 PC0218702 POINQ0127069F I FUJ00120877
FSL_04/535 PC0197643 POINQ0127070F I FUJ00120878
FSL_04/536 PC0214982 POINQ0127072F I FUJ00120880
FSL_04/537 PC0220532 POINQ0127073F I FUJ00120881
Page 94 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/538 surs1034R POINQ0127074F I FUJ00120882
FSL_04/539 PC0241242 POINQ0127075F I FUJ00120883
FSL_04/540 PC0241216 POINQ0127078F I FUJ00120886
FSL_04/541 PC0241528 POINQ0127088F I FUJ00120896
FSL_04/542 PC0239846 POINQ0127098F I FUJ00120906
FSL_04/543 acha9S9T POINQ0127107F I FUJ00120915
FSL_04/544 PC0118562 POINQ0127108F I FUJ00120916
FSL_04/545 PC0114154 POINQ0127109F I FUJ00120917
FSL_04/546 PC0120459 POINQ0127110F I FUJ00120918
FSL_04/547 PC0121331 POINQ0127111F I FUJ00120919
FSL_04/548 PC0129774 POINQ0127112F I FUJ00120920
FSL_04/549 PC0130019 POINQ0127113F I FUJ00120921
FSL_04/550 PC0130127 POINQ0127114F I FUJ00120922
FSL_04/551 PC0130057 POINQ0127115F I FUJ00120923
FSL_04/552 PC0130123 POINQ0127116F I FUJ00120924
FSL_04/553 PC0130185 POINQ0127117F I FUJ00120925
FSL_04/554 LKiang2837P POINQ0127118F I FUJ00120926
FSL_04/555 PC0129587 POINQ0127119F I FUJ00120927
FSL_04/556 PC0130056 POINQ0127120F I FUJ00120928
FSL_04/557 PC0204350 POINQ0127121F I FUJ00120929
FSL_04/558 obengc2336R POINQ0127122F I FUJ00120930
FSL_04/559 PC0205567 POINQ0127123F I FUJ00120931
FSL_04/560 PC0052776 POINQ0074782F I FUJO0066621
FSL_04/561 PC0049702 POINQO075807F I FUJ00067367
FSL_04/562 PC0053160 POINQ0084748F I FUJ00075163
FSL_04/563 PC0097081 POINQ0127124F I FUJ00120932
FSL_04/564 AChambers2258K POINQ0127125F I FUJ00120933
FSL_04/565 PC0098230 POINQ0127126F I FUJ00120934
FSL_04/566 AChambers2252R POINQ0127127F I FUJ00120935
FSL_04/567 PC0129767 POINQ0127128F I FUJ00120936
Page 95 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/568 PC0137437 POINQ0127129F I FUJ00120937
FSL_04/569 PC0151787 POINQ0127130F I FUJ00120938
FSL_04/570 AgnihotriV917N POINQ0127131F I FUJ00120939
FSL_04/571 Agnihotriv245L POINQ0127132F I FUJ00120940
FSL_04/572 PC0200435 POINQ0127133F I FUJ00120941
FSL_04/573 PC0200399 POINQ0127140F I FUJ00120948
FSL_04/574 PC0201340 POINQ0127141F I FUJ00120949
FSL_04/575 Obengce5443L POINQ0127142F I FUJ00120950
FSL_04/576 PC0200090 POINQ0127143F I FUJ00120951
FSL_04/577 Obengc4026R POINQ0127149F I FUJ00120957
FSL_04/578 PC0200042 POINQ0127150F I FUJ00120958
FSL_04/579 PC0209240 POINQ0127160F I FUJ00120968
FSL_04/580 PC0226573 POINQ0127161F I FUJ00120969
FSL_04/581 PC0254447 POINQ0127162F I FUJ00120970
FSL_04/582 PC0260834 POINQ0127163F I FUJ00120971
FSL_04/583 PC0128264 POINQ0127164F I FUJ00120972
FSL_04/584 PC0129811 POINQ0127165F I FUJ00120973
FSL_04/585 PC0129835 POINQ0127166F I FUJ00120974
FSL_04/586 AChambers4134R POINQ0127167F I FUJ00120975
FSL_04/587 PC0129791 POINQ0127168F I FUJ00120976
FSL_04/588 PC0128728 POINQ0127169F I FUJ00120977
FSL_04/589 suklabaidyas49441 POINQ0127170F I FUJ00120978
FSL_04/590 PC0203137 POINQ0127171F I FUJ00120979
FSL_04/591 PC0203108 POINQ0127172F I FUJ00120980
FSL_04/592 Ballantj020J POINQ0127173F I FUJ00120981
FSL_04/593 PC0202925 POINQ0127178F I FUJ00120986
FSL_04/594 PC0203215 POINQ0127179F I FUJ00120987
FSL_04/595 PC0202894 POINQ0127181F I FUJ00120989
FSL_04/596 PC0203284 POINQ0127182F I FUJ00120990
FSL_04/597 PC0115804 POINQ0127184F I FUJ00120992
Page 96 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/598 PC0115456 POINQ0127185F I FUJ00120993
FSL_04/599 PC0117659 POINQ0127186F I FUJ00120994
FSL_04/600 PC0118350 POINQ0127187F I FUJ00120995
FSL_04/601 PC0118677 POINQ0127188F I FUJ00120996
FSL_04/602 PC0119978 POINQ0127189F I FUJ00120997
FSL_04/603 PC0120063 POINQ0127190F I FUJ00120998
FSL_04/604 PC0122147 POINQ0127191F I FUJ00120999
FSL_04/605 PC0122354 POINQ0127192F I FUJ00121000
FSL_04/606 PC0122304 POINQ0127193F I FUJ00121001
FSL_04/607 JAnscomb1935Q POINQ0127194F I FUJ00121002
FSL_04/608 PC0122631 POINQ0127195F I FUJ00121003
FSL_04/609 PC0122630 POINQ0127196F I FUJ00121004
FSL_04/610 PC0122664 POINQ0127197F I FUJ00121005
FSL_04/611 PC0122766 POINQ0127198F I FUJ00121006
FSL_04/612 PC0123056 POINQ0127199F I FUJ00121007
FSL_04/613 PC0123058 POINQ0127200F I FUJ00121008
FSL_04/614 PC0122544 POINQ0127201F I FUJ00121009
FSL_04/615 PC0125210 POINQ0127202F I FUJ00121010
FSL_04/616 PC0125123 POINQ0127203F I FUJ00121011
FSL_04/617 AChambers253L POINQ0127204F I FUJ00121012
FSL_04/618 PC0156718 POINQ0127205F I FUJ00121013
FSL_04/619 PC0141145 POINQ0127206F I FUJ00121014
FSL_04/620 PC0189625 POINQ0127211F I FUJ00121019
FSL_04/621 Ballantj2547K POINQ0127213F I FUJ00121021
FSL_04/622 PC0142604 POINQ0127214F I FUJ00121022
FSL_04/623 PC0131348 POINQ0127215F I FUJ00121023
FSL_04/624 PC0152156 POINQ0127216F I FUJ00121024
FSL_04/625 PC0153333 POINQ0127217F I FUJ00121025
FSL_04/626 PC0157357 POINQ0127218F I FUJ00121026
FSL_04/627 PC0159273 POINQ0127219F I FUJ00121027
Page 97 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
FSL_04/628 PC0162929 POINQ0127220F I FUJ00121028
FSL_04/629 PC0164058 POINQ0127224F I FUJ00121032
FSL_04/630 PC0171637 POINQ0127226F I FUJ00121034
FSL_04/631 PC0174587 POINQ0127227F I FUJ00121035
FSL_04/632 PC0196893 POINQ0127229F I FUJ00121037
FSL_04/633 PC0260269 POINQ0127232F I FUJ00121040
FSL_04/634 cardc235Q POINQ0127233F I FUJ00121041
FSL_04/635 PC0273234 POINQ0127237F I FUJ00121045
FSL_04/636 CHawkes4210N POINQ0127238F I FUJ00121046
FSL_04/637 SSur343P POINQ0127239F I FUJ00121047
FSL_04/638 PC0109020 POINQ0127240F I FUJ00121048
FSL_04/639 CHawkes1745L POINQ0127241F I FUJ00121049
FSL_04/640 PC0142872 POINQ0127242F I FUJ00121050
Page 98 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF THE 29 BEDs
BED 1 — RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS MISMATCH
. Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlCLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/311 to FSL_04/316).
. The issue allowed postmasters to rollover with an unresolved discrepancy. The
impact of the problem was that the stock unit appeared to have balanced, and
the discrepancy could be carried over unnoticed until the branch tried to roll their
accounts over at the end of the next accounting period, whereupon the accounts
were found to be out of balance.
e In September 2010, Fujitsu opened a number of Peaks in relation to the issue:
PC0204263 (FSL_04/312), PC0204765 (FSL_04/313), and PC0203864
(FSL_04/315). Fujitsu identified the circumstances in which it happened and the
branches that were affected (FSL_04/261). Affected branches were identified by
searching for specific event codes in system logs from the point at which HNG-
X had gone live. This analysis was cross-checked by POL in their own back-end
system (FSL_04/262).
° Fujitsu produced reports in relation to the issue for POL (see for example, “lost
discrepancies.doc” dated 28 September 2010 (FSL_04/263 and FSL_04/264).
This provided a summary of the issue, and the stated purpose of the note was
to:
a. “Summarise the problem in terms that are meaningful to Post Office
Ltd
b. Define a process for identifying all affected branches
c. Explain what analysis is needed on each affected branch
Page 99 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
d. Define what ongoing monitoring is required to pick up further
occurrences of the issue until the root cause of the problem is fixed
e. Provide a basis for agreeing the necessary data fixes with Post Office
Ltd; and how they are to be applied
f. Explain how each problem branch can be fixed”
In early October 2010, POL and Fujitsu held a conference call to discuss the
issue. A meeting note was produced showing attendees from POL and Fujitsu
including the headings: “What is the issue?”, “Impact’, “Identifying the issue and
forward resolution”, “Proposal for affected Branches’, and “Action Point
Summary’ (FSL_04/265).
Following the call, there were further communications between Fujitsu and the
POL Duty Manager with updates as to the affected branches and the financial
impact (FSL_04/266). To assist the Inquiry, further communication with POL
includes: FSL_04/264, FSL_04/265 and FSL_04/267 to FSL_04/269. On 11
November 2010, POL emailed FSL: “/ have a conference call on Monday with
senior stakeholders within POL[.] I need a full update for Receipts and Payments”
(FSL_04/270). An internal Fujitsu staff member noted: “I’ve been sending a
report every week to Pol [sic] Duty Manager...” (FSL_04/269).
The issue was also part of the agenda for a number of the monthly Service
Management Reviews that were held with Fujitsu and POL (FSL_04/271 and
FSL_04/272).
A report titled “Receipts and Payments.doc” (FSL_04/273), dated 17 February
2011, was drafted in response to POL’s request to “put together a “storyboard”
showing the precise steps all the way through the problem [i.e. the receipts and
payments mismatch issue], consisting of screen shots and snapshot reports from
Page 100 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
the system. This will assist in the explanation of the issue to senior management
and, if necessary, the Press” (FSL_04/274). Rod Ismay, Head of Product and
Branch Accounting — Finance (POL), provided input on the final document
(FSL_04/275).
An email dated 20 February 2011 from the POL service delivery team stated “[a]s
per the normal process, Fujitsu reported the issue into the SD Live Service Desk
once the discrepancies were identified by the HNG system. SD pulled together
a team of stakeholders to assess the issue and track through to resolution, this
included; Fujitsu, P&BA, IT&C, Security, Network and Legal PC0204263
(FSL_04/276).
The issue was rectified by firstly correcting the reference data on 13 October
2010 (FSL_04/312). The reference data correction was effective once counters
received the 02.12 counter upgrade, which was rolled out to the live estate in
mid-October 2010 (FSL_04/277).
KEL wrightm33145J was also written which described the problem to allow the
Service Desk to recognise that the issue had occurred again if contacted by
branches (FSL_04/316).
The software issue that caused the discrepancy was monitored for future
occurrences (FSL_04/264).
Page 101 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 2 - CALLENDAR SQUARE
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/317 to FSL_04/342).
A problem existed in Horizon whereby, on occasion, a ‘lock’ was not released,
and a second process would then wait for a given time before it ‘timed out’ and
reported an error saying it could not proceed. The problem could occur in various
places in the Horizon applications. In the initial occurrences a reboot of the
counter allowed the system to resume proper function with no data lost.
In some cases, in the Callendar Square branch in particular, the lock problem
caused data to be lost when carrying out transfers between different ‘stock units’,
thereby causing receipts and payments mismatches.
There appear to have been instances of these Riposte lock errors from at least
September 2000, such as PC0056922 (FSL_04/320). In this instance, a
postmaster reported an error message when trying to re-declare their cash. The
call was discussed between various teams from POL and Fujitsu. To assist the
Inquiry, further examples include (but are not limited to): PC0057957,
(FSL_04/322), PC0058994 (FSL_04/323), PC0078592 (FSL_04/342) and
PC0083563 (FSL_04/326).
KEL JBallantyne5245K (FSL_04/319) advised that restarting Riposte, or
rebooting the counter, would resolve incidents where a message reported a
timeout waiting for a lock. Some of these also led to receipts and payments
mismatches, which after investigation, were dealt with by the Fujitsu MSU team
raising a BIMS report so POL could issue an error notice (later known as a
transaction correction) to the postmaster to allow them to reconcile the accounts.
Page 102 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BIMS reports set out the progress to the resolution of a ‘Business Incident’. POL
would use the information from the BIMS report to carry out reconciliation or
settlement with their clients.
It was identified that an error in the underlying Escher Riposte software caused
the lock problem. The issue was raised with Escher, who developed a fix. The fix
was implemented in the S90 software release. The S90 release was scheduled
to start on 4 March 2006 for completion by 14 April 2006 (FSL_04/278). As of 22
March 2006, the S90 migration report showed that the counter release was
99.9% complete (FSL_04/279 and FSL_04/337).
Fujitsu monitored the issue. For example, on 27 March 2006, a Fujitsu employee
noted on PC0127246 that the timeout locks had “gone right down” (FSL_04/339).
Page 103 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 3 - SUSPENSE ACCOUNT BUG
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/343 to FSL_04/344).
A cchange introduced into Horizon in July 2011 had the unintended consequence
of leaving certain ‘orphaned’ records from November / December 2010 relating
to a branch’s suspense account in a table in the branch database, rather than
archiving them. The consequence was that, once a year, when an impacted
branch produced its trading statement, if they had any amount in their suspense
account, the suspense account records from 2010 were also pulled in so that the
branch trading statement showed an erroneous amount in the suspense account.
When the problem resurfaced a year later, a postmaster contacted Fujitsu and a
Peak (PC0223870) was raised on 25 February 2013 (FSL_04/344). Fujitsu then
diagnosed the issue and identified 14 branches as being affected.
Following this, Fujitsu held a conference call with POL’s Problem Manager for
this issue (FSL_04/344). The orphaned records were subsequently removed by
the Fujitsu development team. An extra set of checks were introduced in October
2013 so that if a similar problem surfaced in the future, an error message would
be displayed to the postmaster telling them to contact the Horizon Service Desk.
Page 104 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 4 - DALMELLINGTON
° Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/345 to FSL_04/352).
° This problem manifested when a specific sequence of events occurred:
a. A user was logged out while they were part-way through the login
process, either because of user inactivity at the counter, or because
of a failure in network connectivity.
b. Some time later, the user logged back in and manually ‘remmed-in’ a
pouch of cash into the account.
c. Normally, when a pouch was remmec-in, a ‘rem slip’ would be printed
and the user would continue to another screen.
d. In this particular circumstance, the rem slip would be printed but the
system stayed on the same screen, and if the user pressed enter
again, another rem slip would be printed, and the cash amount would
be added to the account again. The branch accounts would therefore
now show twice the cash than had actually been received.
. On 8 October 2015, a postmaster reported an incident to the NBSC and Atos,
who was responsible the first line support for Horizon at the time (FSL_04/280).
On 10 October 2015, Fujitsu raised the KEL Acha621P — V1. This KEL described
the symptoms of the bug and stated “the cause of the problem is being
investigated” (FSL_04/346). On 13 October 2015, another call (PC0246949) was
raised (FSL_04/345). The call was originally made to the NBSC and was later
routed to Fujitsu for investigation.
Page 105 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
By 15 October 2015, Fujitsu understood how the problem occurred, had
identified that the problem had also recently occurred in other branches, and had
raised a KEL as a workaround to address the issue, and a development Peak
(PC0246997) for a code fix (FSL_04/349).
At the time, the issue was escalated within both Fujitsu and POL (FSL_04/281 to
FSL_04/290)
According to KEL Acha621P, the fix was commenced in January 2016
(FSL_04/350). By 14 January 2016, there were around 400 counters that were
yet to receive the fix (FSL_04/352).
In relation to the testing of the issue, DEV/CNT/CTP/3008 - ODR Further
Investigation - Component Test Plan is a “Description of the approach to be taken
for further testing required in relation to "ODR" - Outreach and Duplicate Rems
issues” (FSL_04/291).
Page 106 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 5 — REMMING IN BUG — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/353 to FSL_04/376).
This problem arose if (i) a postmaster tried to rem-in a pouch on one counter, (ii)
encountered an issue, such as a printing problem before completing the process,
then (iii) tried again on another counter. This sequence could cause the pouch to
be registered twice in the Horizon system, causing a discrepancy in the branch
accounts.
On 17 August 2010, PC0203085 was raised (FSL_04/372). Fujitsu distinguished
this from the other type of remming in bug (BED 5, Issue 2). On 18 August 2010,
a BIMS was raised for the branch so POL could issue a correction to the
accounts. KEL acha4221Q was added to the call (FSL_04/370). The Peak went
through testing and by 23 January 2011, the fix was applied to the live estate as
“part of PSPID Release HRU7284B_PR for 03.21.00.50”.
Page 107 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 5 — REMMING IN BUG — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/353 to FSL_04/376).
If a postmaster used the ‘prev’ (previous screen) button to move backwards
during the process of remming in a cash pouch, and then scanned the same
barcode again, Horizon would register the pouch twice, leading to a discrepancy
in the branch accounts.
This incident was first raised to Fujitsu on 2 March 2010 by a postmaster who
was participating in the HNG-X pilot (FSL_04/368). The postmaster had checked
their reports and found a pouch had been remmed in twice. Similar issues were
reported by postmasters on 3 March 2010 (PC0195511, FSL_04/354), 17 March
2010 (PC0196120, FSL_04/356), and 18 March 2010 (PC0196154,
FSL_04/355).
In diagnosing the extent of the issue, Fujitsu identified affected branches in
March 2010. Fujitsu used this as a basis to run a daily report (the ‘Check Rems’
report) which would be sent to the reconciliation team to identify further
occurrences. A number of Peaks were opened after Fujitsu had identified
potential double remming of pouches (FSL_04/357, FSL_04/359 and
FSL_04/362). Generally, these Peaks were investigated and reported to POL so
that a Transaction Correction could be issued.
The fix was tested by the Live Support Team on 25 March 2010 and was sent to
all counters on 22 April 2010 (PC0195911, FSL_04/353).
Page 108 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 6 - REMMING OUT BUG — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/373 and FSL_04/377 to FSL_04/405).
A coding error in a specific counter release (T30 INC1) caused imbalances when
remming out multiple pouches of coins, which could cause discrepancies.
The issue was first reported to Fujitsu on 12 February 2007 by a postmaster who
had observed the problem (PC0143435, FSL_04/401). The issue was initially
reported to the NBSC. Analysis from the SSC recognised that this would cause
a receipts and payments mismatch, and that the problem could affect cash, stock
and foreign exchange rem outs.
Many instances of this problem were identified through reconciliation reports and
affected branches were contacted by Fujitsu. See for example, PC0143503 at
FSL_04/396. Other instances were reported by POL directly (see for example,
PC0143514 at FSL_04/386), including one in April 2007 at a branch where the
release regression (the fix mentioned below) had failed (PC0144937,
FSL_04/403) (PC0144933, FSL_04/399).
Fujitsu reported on possible branches that were affected in email
correspondence between Fujitsu and POL (FSL_04/292). Fujitsu also prepared
a report titled ‘Rem Misbalance’, setting out the nature and extent of the problem
(FSL_04/293 and FSL_04/294). Fujitsu asked POL to distribute the paper to
relevant POL employees (FSL_04/295). The discussion as to whether to inform
postmasters about the issue was discussed internally within POL (FSL_04/292).
Page 109 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Generally, a Transaction Correction (issued by POL) would have been required
to fix the issue. It was also necessary to carry out an Operational Change
Request ("OCR") to correct the data destined for POL’s back-office systems.
A fix was identified by 19 February 2007, and on 4 June 2007, it was reported to
be live across all branches (FSL_04/401). According to the February 2007
Service Review Book, the T30 INC1 release was ‘regressed’, i.e., as far as
possible counter applications were returned to the previous release, on the night
of 12 February 2007 (FSL_04/296). KEL acha508S records that Fujitsu’s SSC
team had contacted the affected branches to provide advice as to what to do to
remedy rem out issues (FSL_04/391).
Release Notes RNT3035D and RNT3036C were both created on or around 22
February 2007 to monitor and track the progress of the releases.
Page 110 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 6 - REMMING OUT BUG — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/373 and FSL_04/377 to FSL_04/405).
A postmaster attempted to rem out a pouch of coins. Upon receiving a message
that the bar code was invalid, they were able to use the home button, which
should not have been possible (PC0120937, FSL_04/378). This caused the
transaction to be left in the branch suspense account.
The problem was raised on 13 May 2005 by the postmaster. Following discussion
between the SSC and Development team via the Peak, it was agreed that a KEL
(GMaxwell3853P) would be raised in case future incidents were reported
(FSL_04/377). Per PC0120937, Fujitsu understands the SSC also checked
Peaks that had been raised since the introduction of Release S60 and were
unable to identify previous occurrences. The call was passed back to the NBSC
for rectification. The Peak was closed on 15 June 2005.
Page 111 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 7 - LOCAL SUSPENSE ACCOUNT ISSUE
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/406 to FSL_04/425).
This issue was a combination of two issues: (i) a coding error in the Branch
Access Layer (“BAL”) server application referred to as a ‘threading error’, and (ii)
insufficient error handling in the counter application, meant that when
unexpected messages were received the counter either did not recognise that
an error had occurred, and therefore behaved unexpectedly, or did not deal with
the error in a helpful way.
The combination of these two issues manifested at the counter in at least four
ways, which were initially documented in several Peaks: PC0196767,
PC0197409 and PC0197797 (FSL_04/420, FSL_04/421 and FSL_04/415,
respectively). Fujitsu's records indicate that the Local Suspense Account issue
was first noted on 29 March 2010 in Peak PC0196767 (FSL_04/420). The Peak
noted that “OCR 26169 has been raised” (FSL_04/297). The branch appeared
in a TPSC Harvester Exception report and a TPSC257 (POLFS Incomplete
Summaries) report, and showed three new harvester exceptions.
Fujitsu identified affected branches and discussed this with POL (FSL_04/298 to
FSL_04/300).
A workaround was provided in KEL cardc2043L on 15 April 2010 (FSL_04/408).
Fujitsu’s SSC and development teams worked together on these issues and
determined that, whilst most incidents were raised because of issues at the
counter, the root cause was on the BAL server. By 18 April 2010, development
had managed to reproduce the problem and by 22 April 2010, code fixes required
Page 112 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
to the BAL server applications had been identified (FSL_04/420). Testing of the
BAL server fixes was fast-tracked and underway by 28 April 2010. The Peak was
marked “release to live” on 17 May 2010. On 8 July 2010, the fix was rolled out
in BAL_SRV_OSR_0122_V058-V057 (FSL_04/421 and FSL_04/422). In
September 2010, the “[clounter release RNT9612 delivering Tivoli Product
COUNTER_X0210 54_1” had begun its roll out to the live estate (FSL_04/406
and FSL_04/301).
Page 113 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 8 —- RECOVERY ISSUES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/426 to FSL_04/439).
During the pilot of Horizon Online, an issue occurred when there was a failed
transaction on one stock unit and the user then logged into another stock unit to
invoke the recovery for the failed transaction. In this instance, a transaction could
be recovered to the wrong trading period.
Peak PC0197769 was raised on 15 April 2010 in relation to the issue. A
postmaster reported a balancing issue after a clerk had swapped terminals
(FSL_04/428).
The problem itself was described in a report on issues likely to impact the POL’s
Product and Branch Accounting team, prepared by Fujitsu for the Joint Steering
Board at the request of lan Trundell (POL) (FSL_04/302). The SSC concluded
that the issue could have an impact on branch accounts. On 29 April 2010, an
email indicated that Fujitsu had identified 13 branches which might have been
affected by this problem, and that, on 26 May 2010, three more had been
identified (FSL_04/303). Details were passed to the Fujitsu Reconciliation team
so that any accounting discrepancies could be communicated to POL for
rectification.
Page 114 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 8 —- RECOVERY ISSUES ~ ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/426 to FSL_04/439).
There were a number of failed recoveries within this issue. These are broadly
grouped into: (i) State 4 recovery failures, (ii) State 4 pin pad issues, and (iii)
recovery failures due to printer error.
State 4 Recovery failures
KEL acha959t identifies the circumstances which could cause a transaction to
be in State 4 (FSL_04/439). These include failure of the Recovery process. The
KEL was originally written on 28 February 2010 during the Horizon Online pilot.
It explains that Recovery can fail because:
“Ifa T1 recovery request times out at the counter, recovery is abandoned
and no second attempt is made to get the recovery information. This is
as designed; it was decided to keep recovery simple and not have too
many error paths. The priority is to get the User working again, so in this
sort of error path we just mark the recovery as failed and leave it for SSC
to sort out. If it does become a frequent occurrence development could
look at this area again, but there is no obvious improvement.”
The KEL instructs Fujitsu’s MSU as to what actions to take for each
circumstance. In particular, where there is a failed Recovery, detailed checking
is required as, under one circumstance, a branch customer's bank account could
have been debited money which had not been paid to the customer. In others,
the branch customer's bank account could be correct but a loss will have been
incurred in the branch account.
Page 115 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The general approach would have been for the MSU team to generate a BIMS
report so that a Transaction Correction would be issued to correct the position of
either branch or customer accounts. On occasion the MSU would also raise a
Peak so that the SSC could confirm if there were any underlying software issues.
State 4 PIN pad issues
An incident occurred in which the postmaster cancelled a banking transaction
just as the customer was entering their PIN code into the PIN pad. The result
was that, despite a cancellation receipt being produced, the customer’s bank
account was debited. Horizon produced a system error and then continued.
Peak PC0223229 was opened on 28 January 2013 (FSL_04/432). Following
investigation, it was determined that a manual reconciliation was needed to
return funds to the customer. Fujitsu’s Development team was asked to review
the incident to determine whether there was a problem which could be fixed or
whether a KEL should be raised. The Development team reproduced the
problem on 30 January 2013 and appear to have determined that it was caused
by the way the application handled error codes from the PIN pad. There was an
investigation with the Fujitsu reconciliation team to see if other examples of this
event had occurred.
The Peak does not appear to have been investigated further and the issue was
resolved during standard reconciliation processes.
Recovery failures due to printer error
During the Horizon Online pilot, a customer transaction failed to complete at the
counter, but the customer’s bank account was debited. The transaction should
have been recovered but the recovery failed. The root cause was found to be a
bug in the printing system.
Page 116 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Peak PC0193463 was opened on 19 January 2010 and a BIMS report was raised
with POL on 20 January 2010 so that the customer could be refunded
(FSL_04/429). The problem was reproduced on 21 January 2010 and a fixed
specified. A patch containing the tested fix was prepared on 22 January 2010.
By 3 February 2010, the fix had been tested and it was confirmed that banking
transactions would not suffer from the same issue because of printing errors. The
fix was scheduled for release and closed on 16 April 2010.
Page 117 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 9 - REVERSALS
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/440 to FSL_04/443).
A code fix distributed as part of the S30 release, caused a problem under certain
circumstances due to faulty logic. On occasion, when a postmaster attempted to
‘reverse out’ a sum which had been ‘remmed in’, the balance showed double the
initial amount rather than zero. According to the April 2003 Service Review Book,
dated 15 May 2003, delivery of S30 commenced in April 2003 and by 2 May
2003, 2,135 branches were live.
The initial issue (PC0089918) was reported by a postmaster to the NBSC on 24
April 2003 (FSL_04/440). The problem was then sent to the Fujitsu SSC on 28
April 2003, who identified that an error had occurred. A KEL (PSteed2847N) was
raised (FSL_04/443). The issue was also routed to the Fujitsu MSU team so that
they could liaise with POL, who would then issue Transaction Corrections to
rectify the accounts, following which the Peak was to be routed back to Fujitsu
so that Development could produce a code fix.
On 30 April 2003, the Fujitsu EPOSS Development team identified the coding
error, and that it had been released with S30. An emergency fix was created,
tested, and went live on 7 May 2003. Instructions for testers detailed how the fix
was to be tested, to make sure that both the new problem and the original
problem which S30 aimed to fix had been fixed.
Page 118 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 10 —- DATA TREE BUILD FAILURES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/444 to FSL_04/452).
Fujitsu understands this issue was first reported by a branch on 10 November
1999 after a discrepancy occurred in the accounts (PC0033128, FSL_04/446).
Anumber of PinlCLs for similar incidents were raised between February and May
2000 (for example, see PC0039313, FSL_04/452).
A list of cross-domain problems was presented in the monthly Service Review
Books to be discussed in the Service Review Forum with POL. The issue with
the Dungannon branch was tracked in a number of these (for example, see
FSL_04/304).
To resolve the issue, Fujitsu implemented two changes — specific diagnostics to
log a failure to build the data tree, and more error checking in the application
code. Such diagnostics were distributed to 99% of the estate by 16 May 2000
(FSL_04/446). This would allow any recurrences of the problem to be monitored.
Error checking for this issue was included in the Cl4 release, which was rolled
out to existing live counters between August and October 2000. Fujitsu monitored
the issue following the Cl4 release. In the PinICL for Dungannon (PC0033128),
Fujitsu stated on 29 November 2000 “This problem has now been on monitor
since the introduction of CSR+ and no further incidents have occurred. I have
agreed closure with Theresa Walsh (POCL) who will close the corresponding
POCL problem call’. The call was subsequently closed.
Page 119 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 10 —- DATA TREE BUILD FAILURES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/444 to FSL_04/452).
Issue 2(1) - PC0121925
Two incidents arose during testing by POL of release S80, whereby
discrepancies appeared when balancing. The two incidents were raised in test
by POL on 13 June 2005 and 4 July 2005 (FSL_04/450). A KEL was written with
a workaround should a similar incident occur in live operations, but no further
action was taken.
A fixed was released on 18 August 2005. POL re-tested the issue and closed
their own incident.
Issue 2(2) - PC0132133
In this instance, a postmaster reported a situation whereby a cash report showed
varying discrepancies over a 20-minute period, after which the discrepancy
disappeared. The postmaster was referred to Fujitsu by the NBSC.
The incident was initially raised on 10 February 2006 (FSL_04/449). Fujitsu
identified a coding error and also specified that further diagnostics be inserted
into the EPOSS application which would provide an audit log if this or a similar
problem happened again, so that reoccurrence of the problem could be
monitored.
On 24 February 2006, the Release Management Forum authorised these fixes
to be carried out. On 23 March 2006, the fixes were released in the live system.
KEL MScardifield2219S was updated accordingly (FSL_04/451).
Page 120 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
In this case, Giro transaction reversals carried out after the report cut-off time
were not included in the daily Giro report for that day, nor in the same report for
the next day. Despite this, the transaction reversals would have been recorded
correctly in the weekly office Cash Account report. In this instance, the system
was working as designed so no fix was required.
In some instances, the discrepancy was reported by Girobank to the postmaster,
who would then call Fujitsu or POL through the Helpline, for example, PinlICLs
PC0044101 (FSL_04/456) and PC0050418 (FSL_04/460), whereas in other
instances, the issues were discovered by the postmaster, for example PinICL
PC0040754 (FSL_04/457).
Page 121 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES — ISSUE 2
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
° The same Giro deposit was included on two successive daily reports as a result
of being committed during a particular window of time on a shared stock unit. It
was noticed by Fujitsu while investigating BED 11, Issue 1 above, and a fix was
applied to prevent reoccurrence. This appears to be another instance of the bug
recorded in incident PC0052575, which is included in BED 11, Issue 3 below
(FSL_04/465).
e The issue was fixed by new ReportProcessor, ReportBroker and DataServer
files, and Fujitsu released the fix between 30 May and 23 June 2000
(FSL_04/474).
Page 122 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES -— ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
° A discrepancy occurred between the daily Giro report and the office daily report
due to a transaction being carried out on a shared stock unit by one user while
another user was printing and cutting off the daily report. The bug described in
the first incident relating to this issue (PC0052575, FSL_04/465) appears to be
identical to that described in BED 11, Issue 2. The other incident relating to this
issue (PC0052704, FSL_04/463) appears to be the same as BED 11, Issue 1.
Page 123 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES -— ISSUE 4
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
° In this instance, a programming error meant that the daily cut-off report could be
produced more than once.
. The POL team, Post Office Network Business Service Management (“PON
BSM’) raised an incident with Fujitsu on 27 July 2001. Incident PC0068633
(FSL_04/474) was opened and by 2 August 2001, Fujitsu had reproduced the
bug and identified the code fix required. The fix had been coded and tested by
21 December 2001.
Page 124 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES -— ISSUE 5
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
Fujitsu understands this related to differences between the daily Giro report and
the office daily report.
A postmaster initially raised a problem on 9 April 2002 and incident PC0075312
was raised on 10 April 2002 (FSL_04/475). It was investigated, and identified
that the same problem, but relating to National Savings reports, had been
previously raised in incident PC0073855 (FSL_04/477), which was being
investigated by the Fujitsu development team. Incident PC0075312 was closed
on 10 April 2002. PC0073855 subsequently investigated both this problem and
the related National Savings problem.
Diagnostics were put in place to ensure any future occurrence could be
investigated in detail. KEL DRowe440r was also logged (FSL_04/478).
Page 125 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 11 —- GIROBANK DISCREPANCIES — ISSUE 6
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/453 to FSL_04/478).
° Fujitsu understands this was a single incident relating to Girobank transactions
not appearing on a daily cut-off report.
. Incident PC0076065 (FSL_04/476) was opened on 9 May 2002 after a call from
the postmaster. Fujitsu investigated the issue on the same day by reviewing the
message store and concluded that the postmaster had printed the report twice,
once before the transactions had been carried out, and once after. This situation
was explained to the postmaster.
Page 126 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 12 - COUNTER REPLACEMENT — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/479 to FSL_04/491).
Fujitsu’s solution to POL’s requirements 820 and 832 (schedule A.16 of the
Codified Agreement) used automatic replication of data between counter servers
in a branch, or between a counter and the central correspondence server, to
ensure “recovery without operator intervention” in the case of a local failure. If an
engineer replaced a counter server, the system was intended to automatically
replicate data back to this new hardware without loss of transactions. On
occasion when a replacement took place, the server came out of recovery mode
before replication was complete, resulting in a small number of messages being
overwritten. Depending on what was overwritten, this may have stalled the
upload of data to central servers from the branch or might result in lost
transactions and a receipts and payments mismatch in the branch accounts.
The problem first appears to have been recognised in incident PC0051255,
which was opened on 27 July 2000 (FSL_04/480). In this instance, the branch
had not “polled” (uploaded data to the central systems). By 1 August 2000,
Fujitsu reported that the branch message store had been inspected and the
cause had been tracked to missing messages. The issue was passed to Fujitsu’s
4" line support, who suspected it was caused by a counter server replacement.
Fujitsu then checked the message logs, and it was confirmed that a counter
replacement had taken place.
The problem was seen again independently during release testing on 21 August
2000 and incident PC0052823 was raised (FSL_04/483).
Page 127 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Fujitsu discussed the fix to incident PC0052823 with POL at a Release
Management Forum on 20 December 2000 (FSL_04/305). On 9 September
2002, the incident PC0052823 was closed after a successful retest.
During the period in which incident PC0052823 was being investigated and fixes
designed, a number of other incidents including PC0064574 (FSL_04/486) were
raised because of live incidents of this problem which caused receipts and
payments mismatches in branch accounts. When an incident caused receipts
and payments mismatches, the Fujitsu MSU team generally liaised with POL
through the reconciliation process to balance accounts.
Fujitsu were also in communication with POL’s Problem Manager for PC0064574
(Ed Jones) (FSL_04/486). In addition, the issue was referenced in Service
Review Books on 17 April 2001 and 15 May 2001 which record “PC0064574,
raised 29/03/01 - PM - Hard drive swaps - R&P misbalance” (FSL_04/306 and
FSL_04/307).
Page 128 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 12 - COUNTER REPLACEMENT — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/479 to FSL_04/491).
The issue was identified through the standard reconciliation process on 23 March
2006 (PC0133822, FSL_04/487). This issue occurred because messages were
missing at the counter server in a branch though they were present on the central
correspondence server. The problem occurred when the branch was
reconfigured from being a three-counter branch to a single counter branch, and
the root cause appears to have been that the engineer failed initially to install a
“mirror” (backup) server for the single counter.
By 27 March 2006, Fujitsu had identified the cause and impact of the problem,
which was resolved through the standard process of issuing a BIMS report to
POL so that a transaction correction could be issued by POL.
Page 129 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 12 - COUNTER REPLACEMENT — ISSUE 3
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/479 to FSL_04/491).
Fujitsu’s records indicate this issue arose in one branch and occurred due to a
system problem. A report incorrectly showed a receipts and payments mismatch,
though there was no underlying discrepancy in the accounts.
The issue was identified through standard monitoring on 31 January 2008 and a
Peak (PC0153660, FSL_04/490) was opened on 1 February 2008. By 4
February 2008, Fujitsu had investigated the counter messages and determined
the cause, which appears to have been a synchronisation issue between two
counters which caused a report to show the wrong information. It was determined
that there was no underlying impact on the accounts.
On 7 February 2008, the postmaster separately reported the issue to the NBSC,
which then routed the incident to Fujitsu, resulting in a further Peak (PC0153851,
FSL_04/489). Fujitsu confirmed: “This has already been investigated
(PC0153660) because the counter daily reconciliation showed up a problem.
Caused by Riposte failing to index four messages. PC0153660 has been
updated with information to be passed to POL”. Fujitsu spoke with the postmaster
and monitored the issue until the branch rolled into the next trading period. Both
calls were subsequently closed and a final BIMS report was issued to POL.
Page 130 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 13 — WITHDRAWN STOCK DISCREPANCIES
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/492 to FSL_04/499).
An issue occurred when a postmaster declared they held stock of a product that
had been withdrawn by POL.
The issue manifested in the live system at a branch concerning £5 savings
stamps which had been withdrawn by POL. NBSC raised the incident with Fujitsu
on 19 January 2011 (PC0207834, FSL_04/494). By 11 February 2011, an
investigation under incident PCO0207834 had been carried out to identify all
branches impacted by the withdrawn stock problem. On 2 March 2011, it was
confirmed that the “NBSC have actioned the workaround successfully’.
By 1 April 2011, it was confirmed that a code fix for this issue would be delivered
to prevent any recurrences. Further, as set out in incident PC0209602
(FSL_04/497), user interface changes were made to ensure withdrawn products
did not appear as options when a counter clerk was making stock declarations.
Page 131 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 14 - BUREAU DISCREPANCIES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/500 to FSL_04/503).
A discrepancy in branch accounts occurred when a network disconnection took
place halfway through a transaction to sell a customer a basket with two different
currencies. The total amount for both currencies appeared in the branch
accounts, but only the order for the first currency was received by the currency
provider.
Peak PC0261541 (FSL_04/502) was first raised to Fujitsu on 17 August 2017
after the issue had occurred in a branch. By 18 August 2017, Fujitsu identified
that the problem occurred after a communications timeout. By 23 August 2017,
Fujitsu had identified that the problem related to an AP-ACD script. POL was
informed so that the discrepancy could be remedied through a transaction
correction. On 24 August 2017, Atos, who were responsible for maintenance of
the script on behalf of POL, were informed of the problem and the changes
required.
Page 132 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 14 —- BUREAU DISCREPANCIES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/500 to FSL_04/503).
A discrepancy arose between the foreign currency amount for Euros and US
Dollars recorded in Horizon at one branch, and the amounts which POL’s back-
office system (POLSAP) calculated that the branch was holding. The impact on
the branch was that the request to replenish Euros and US Dollars were refused,
so the branch could not make sales.
The incident appears to have been initially raised with Fujitsu on 19 December
2017 in PC0265443 (FSL_04/501). The investigation involved four parties, POL
(as the interface with the branch), Atos (overall service manager/problem
manager), Fujitsu (provider of the Horizon system), Accenture (provider of the
POLSAP system). The Peak also noted that “The comparison of data between
Fujitsu and Accenture identified no discrepancies and the visit to the branch by
a POL trainer confirmed that the branch holdings matches the figures held in
Horizon”.
It was agreed that the incident was outside Fujitsu’s remit, specifically the MMBE
Files for US Dollars and Euros which was agreed to be dealt with by Atos and
Accenture. The Peak was subsequently closed in May 2018.
Page 133 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 15 — PHANTOM TRANSACTIONS — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/504 to FSL_04/509).
A postmaster raised a call concerning transactions which appeared without the
branch staff knowingly processing them, or which appeared in error when
another transaction was processed. Other issues such as hardware problems
were also reported.
Peak PC0063755 (FSL_04/506) was opened on 12 March 2001. Two other
Peaks were opened for later calls (PC0064809, FSL_04/507 and PC0064922,
FSL_04/508). A master Peak (PC0065021, FSL_04/509) was opened on 13
June 2001 and records numerous calls from the postmaster raising issues. The
Peak describes the action taken to identify the root cause of the issue. In addition,
an engineer from ROMEC (a company contracted by POL) visited the branch.
The master Peak (PC0065021) was closed in November 2001 concluding:
“Phantom Txns have not been proven in circumstances which preclude user
error. In all cases where these have occurred a user error related cause can be
attributed to the phenomenon.”
Page 134 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 15 — PHANTOM TRANSACTIONS — ISSUE 2
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/504 to FSL_04/509).
° In August 2000, a postmaster reported a receipt containing three transactions
was printed without any user input (PC0052025, FSL_04/505). Investigation from
Fujitsu indicated that the transactions were in a suspended session and were not
completed when the user was logged out after a period of inactivity. The system
was designed to complete such transactions and print the receipt to evidence
this. The situation was explained to the postmaster, and it was agreed that the
incident could be closed.
Page 135 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 15 — PHANTOM TRANSACTIONS — ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/504 to FSL_04/509).
° In August 2000, the same postmaster that reported the issue in BED 15, Issue 2
raised a call to the Fujitsu Helpdesk (PC0051108, FSL_04/504). The postmaster
reported that there were differences between the icons displayed on the two
counters at the branch. The second counter had not yet received the latest
Riposte release. It would have been automatically upgraded in due course, but
Fujitsu upgraded the second counter sooner to bring it up to date with the other
counter.
Page 136 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/446 and FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524)
This issue related to a report that identified any mismatches in relation to the
Cash Account. An issue with the code meant, in the event of a particular
sequence of operations being carried out by the postmaster, it would cause
transactions to be brought forward from the previous week's Cash Account.
The problem was initially flagged through Fujitsu’s monitoring in PinICL
PC0039832 (FSL_04/516, later cloned to PC0040243 (FSL_04/511)), which was
opened on 3 March 2000. By 9 March 2000, it had been investigated and Fujitsu
suspected it was an issue with the reconciliation reporting. It was flagged for a
rapid fix as it impacted financial reconciliation. By 10 April 2000, the problem had
been reproduced and the area of code which caused it had been identified. By
18 April 2000, a fix appears to have been tested, which later went live in July
2000.
Two other PiniCLs were raised (PC0044966 and PC0045529) and were found
to be instances of the same problem which occurred before the fix went live
(FSL_04/510 and FSL_04/513).
Page 137 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/446 and FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524)
The problem was flagged to the Fujitsu SSC as a result of monitoring reports in
two separate PinICLs in April 2002 (PC0075240, FSL_04/518 and PC0075415,
FSL_04/520).
SSC investigated both problems and by 30 April 2002, they found that a rounding
error in the reporting code caused entries of £0.01 in the cash account to be
ignored in a reconciliation report, causing spurious discrepancies to be flagged.
It was originally fixed on 11 June 2002 and the fix went live on 19 June 2002.
The fix (which encompassed other issues) was found to be causing the
reconciliation report process to run very slowly, so the fix was withdrawn,
redelivered on 12 July 2002, and went live on 28 August 2002.
Page 138 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/446 and FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524)
° The issue (PC0049578, FSL_04/514) occurred in a test system in around July
2000 and was flagged by POL’s test team to the Horizon helpdesk, who
ultimately passed the issue to the SSC. In this instance, there was a difference
between the number of files recorded as being transferred to TIP and the number
of files actually transferred.
e The Fujitsu development team investigated the issue. The problem was fixed by
installing WP104 into the live estate on 11 August 2000. Fujitsu confirmed that
the problem was corrected following the application of WP104 and subsequently
closed the call.
Page 139 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 4
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/446 and FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524)
A single incident caused by an issue described above (BED 10 - Data Tree Build
Failure Discrepancies — Issue 1) meant a reconciliation report falsely flagged a
discrepancy in the cash account. PC0045847 (FSL_04/515) was opened on 26
May 2000 as a discrepancy was shown for a branch which had just been
migrated successfully. By 5 June 2000, Fujitsu had identified the cause as being
a failure to record the correct totals during rollover.
After investigation of the logs, it was established that there was a corruption of
the message store when this incident occurred. By 11 August 2000, it was
confirmed that this was a specific instance of the lack of Riposte error checking
which caused BED 10 - Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies — Issue 1, and
would be fixed when the fix for that bug went live. The PinICL was closed on 14
August 2000.
Page 140 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 5
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/446 and FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524)
This issue related to the Client Transaction Summary (CTS) file, which was sent
from branch accounts and delivered to POL’s back-office systems. Under certain
circumstances, due to a coding error, data was missing from the CTS file but
present in Client Files that were also sent to POL’s back-office systems, causing
a discrepancy to be registered in POL’s back-office system (POLSAP).
POL’s Client Settlement and Accounts Payable team initially found a discrepancy
between CTS and Client Files produced in August 2014 and raised the issue with
Fujitsu, who raised Peak PC0236246 (FSL_04/523).
Fujitsu’s SSC investigated the issue and passed it on to Fujitsu’s development
team. On 18 September 2014, Fujitsu’s Development team produced a
hypothesis as to why the problem was occurring, which was that it related to new
products that had start times which were not midnight. On 19 September 2014,
the hypothesis was validated, and a fix proposed. Updates regarding the
resolution and fix were provided to Atos in their role as operational service
manager.
A KEL (AllenD44311) was written to describe the problem if it reoccurred before
the fix went live (FSL_04/524).
The fix was written, tested and integrated by 8 October 2014. The fix went live
on 4 December 2014 via an operational change (MSC) and was later
incorporated in a standard release.
Page 141 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 16 — RECONCILIATION ISSUES — ISSUE 6
. Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/510 to FSL_04/524).
° The incident (PC0204872) was raised on 28 September 2010 (FSL_04/517). It
related to an issue in POL’s back-office system (POLSAP). It was concluded that
the problem was an issue with POLSAP rather than an issue with Horizon. The
Peak was closed by 30 September 2010, and the person who raised the incident
was informed.
Page 142 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 17 - BRANCH CUSTOMER DISCREPANCIES
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/525 to FSL_04/526).
° This was an incident where customer was charged by their bank although the
transaction was not recorded by Horizon because the counter crashed while
attempting the transaction. Fujitsu detected the problem transaction via the
automated NB102 report, where it appeared as a state 4 transaction (an
incomplete transaction). The report resulted in the creation of Peak PC0156174
(FSL_04/525) in March 2008.
e Fujitsu contacted the branch to advise the postmaster on the recovery processes
and later that day, a BIMS report was issued to POL to rectify the issue.
Page 143 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 18 - CONCURRENT LOGINS — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/527 to FSL_04/531).
Issue 1 related to a single user being able to log into Horizon at two counters at
the same time, which the system should not have allowed.
PiniCL PC0027581 (FSL_04/531) was raised on 9 July 1999, after a postmaster
reported to the NBSC that he had been able to log on to two counters at the same
time. By 13 July 1999, Fujitsu confirmed that the Riposte message store seemed
to show that the postmaster had been logged on two counters simultaneously.
The diagnosis and resolution of the issue was passed between Fujitsu team
members, and during this time, NBSC made contact with Fujitsu to confirm the
status of the incident.
On 3 November 1999, Fujitsu attempted to reproduce the problem and found it
could be reproduced. Following this, there was discussion as to whether the
issue was of sufficiently high priority to fix at that time. On 2 February 2000, the
priority of the incident was raised and the team responsible for Escher
investigated. On 25 May 2000, Fujitsu appears to have raised the issue with
Escher. Escher released a new version of Riposte on 15 September 2000, which
was meant to include a fix for this issue. However, a further test on 27 September
2000 demonstrated that the issue had not been rectified.
On 11 October 2000, Escher stated that Riposte logins were working as
designed. In or around June or July 2001, it appears that it was decided that
Fujitsu’s EPOSS team would implement a workaround for the issue.
Page 144 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
The PinICL was closed on 7 February 2002 with instructions to reopen the PinICL
if the issue reoccurred.
Page 145 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 18 - CONCURRENT LOGINS — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/527 to FSL_04/531).
Issue 2 concerned a receipts and payments mismatch that occurred due to a
coding issue, which permitted a postmaster to transfer money from one counter
to another while the first counter was being rolled over. The system should have
prevented postmasters from undertaking a transfer in these circumstances.
The incident was raised with Fujitsu on 24 July 2000 (PinICL PC0051327)
(FSL_04/529). By 28 July 2000, Fujitsu had established what had happened after
discussing the circumstances with the postmaster and confirmed that the
postmaster should not have been effectively able to log into two counters with
the same user identification number. On 1 August 2000, a further incident (PinICL
PC0051485) was recorded as another instance of the same issue (FSL_04/528).
A number of detailed analyses were carried out, with an interim diagnosis of why
it occurred on 4 October 2000. By 22 November 2000, Fujitsu determined that
this was a transient bug caused by two modules in the application using different
methods to communicate with one another. It was further determined that an
earlier release (known as C145) should have already fixed the issue.
Page 146 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 19 — Post and Go TA Discrepancies in POLSAP
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlCLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/532 to FSL_04/534).
The issue concerned Post Office branches that had installed Post & Go
terminals, which were independent of Horizon, that Fujitsu understands allowed
branch customers to pay for and print postage labels automatically.
Postmasters had to manually input data from the Post & Go terminals into
Horizon. This process was automated as part of Release 2 of HNG-X by taking
the data from various terminals and kiosks (including the Post & Go terminal) and
submitting the data in a Transaction Acknowledgement message. If the
postmaster accepted this Transaction Acknowledgement message, the data
would be automatically inputted into Horizon.
The issue occurred in certain circumstances if a Post & Go terminal was only
used for non-cash transactions. Due to a design flaw, Transaction
Acknowledgement messages would not be sent in these circumstances,
affecting the reporting of data from Horizon to POL’s POLSAP system.
On 13 June 2012, Peak PC0281702 (FSL_04/534) was raised by Fujitsu at
POL’s request after the issue was identified by POL’s POLSAP system. The
incident occurred at the Brent Cross branch, and it appears that Fujitsu and POL
were already aware of a similar incident at the Ludgate Circus branch, which had
been diagnosed as due to use of the Post & Go terminal for non-cash
transactions. It was agreed that the immediate issue would be fixed by a
Managed Service Change to run a script to generate the necessary Transaction
Acknowledgement messages.
Page 147 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
On 18 June 2012, the changes required for a fix were identified.
On 29 August 2012, Peak PC0220393 (FSL_04/533) was raised by Fujitsu after
the POL POLSAP team requested further investigation. By 31 August 2012,
Fujitsu determined that the cause of the incident was the same as for Peak
PC0281702 (FSL_04/534), and that the immediate issue could be fixed via a
Managed Service Change. Fujitsu recommended POL monitor a certain report
(known as a “SubFileOnHold” report) to check for other instances of the issue
(FSL_04/533).
The fix was released on 17 December 2012.
Page 148 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 20 —- RECOVERY FAILURES — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/535 to FSL_04/543).
Issue 1 concerned two Peaks relating to an account discrepancy at a Post Office
branch.
On 13 January 2012, the first Peak (PC0214982, FSL_04/536) was raised by
Fujitsu after a postmaster reported that a discrepancy in their branch accounts
had occurred after a counter was replaced at their branch. Fujitsu investigated
the incident and found that discrepancies existed before the counter had been
swapped, and asked NBSC to investigate further by going through the branch’s
account transactions.
On 5 September 2012, a second Peak (PC0220532, FSL_04/537) was raised
after the same postmaster reported that they believed their discrepancy was
caused by the failed counter. Fujitsu noted: “/f further investigation by Fujitsu is
required, Post Office will have to request that the branch transaction data is
retrieved from the audit server’. Otherwise, the issue should be passed back to
POL for reconciliation.
Page 149 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 20 —- RECOVERY FAILURES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/535 to FSL_04/543).
Issue 2 concerned a coding error that affected branch counters. When a counter
failed before a transaction paid with a debit card had completed, upon restart the
counter would become stuck in a loop trying to recover, which rendered the
counter unusable. The issue was caused by a loop in a POL supplied AP-ACD
script, the root cause of which was an error in the Horizon code.
Fujitsu became aware of this issue during testing. Peak PC0239846
(FSL_04/542) was raised on 19 December 2014 to investigate the root cause for
the counters becoming stuck in a loop. On 22 December 2014, the Development
team carried out an initial analysis, and determined a potential workaround to
stop the POL script looping. This was emailed to POL on 23 December 2014.
In January 2015, a further analysis was carried out by Fujitsu and a code fix was
recommended as the bug could have an impact on trading. By 27 February 2015,
it appears that the code changes required had been completed and initial testing
had been passed.
On 23 February 2015, two Peaks were raised with Fujitsu concerning live
instances of the issue:
a. Peak PC0241216 (FSL_04/540) was raised as the recovery failure
issue had occurred at a branch whilst a banking and a health lottery
transaction were being processed. By 9 March 2015, Fujitsu tested
and confirmed that the issue would be fixed by the code fix relating to
PC0239846 (FSL_04/542) and the incident was closed.
Page 150 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
b. Peak PC0241242 (FSL_04/539) was raised at a branch where a
counter was stuck in a loop processing a health lottery transaction.
Fujitsu identified that the issue was the same as PC0241216
(FSL_04/540). On 24 February 2015, Fujitsu recommended that the
stuck transaction be deleted, and that they needed authorisation from
POL to do this as the transaction was a financial transaction
(FSL_04/539).
. In March 2015, Fujitsu, POL and Atos exchanged emails concerning the issue
(FSL_04/308)
° In May 2015, final testing was carried out and the fix released.
Page 151 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 20 —- RECOVERY FAILURES — ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/535 to FSL_04/543).
° Issue 3 concerned a one-off reconciliation exception incident. Peak PC0197643
(FSL_04/535) was raised by Fujitsu on 13 April 2010 after reconciliation
procedures identified a discrepancy. There was a counter timeout issue;
however, there was no evidence identified at the time that the timeout issue or
recovery caused the incident to occur. It was noted that the incident may have
been due to user error. The discrepancy was rectified in line with standard
reconciliation procedures by Fujitsu issuing a BIMS report to POL.
Page 152 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 21 —- TRANSACTION CORRECTION ISSUES — ISSUE 1
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/544 to FSL_04/559).
° Issue 1 involved four incidents that were raised by either Fujitsu or POL during
system and integration testing of Release S80 between January and May 2005.
Peaks PC0114154 (FSL_04/545) and PC0120459 (FSL_04/546) were raised by
Fujitsu, and Peak PC0121331 (FSL_04/547) was raised by POL. All four
incidents related to the display of buttons on the transaction correction
processing screen in the counter application and did not relate to the live system.
e All four incidents were investigated and resolved by application of a code fix by
Fujitsu by June 2005.
Page 153 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 21 —- TRANSACTION CORRECTION ISSUES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/544 to FSL_04/559).
Issue 2 occurred when a Transaction Correction message issued by POL to a
branch through Horizon contained a long sequence of characters with no spaces.
Due to a coding error, these types of Transaction Correction messages would
cause the counter application to freeze. This would in turn prevent the branch
from processing the Transaction Correction and, as a consequence of the
outstanding Transaction Correction, prevent the branch from being able to
rollover the branch accounts at the end of the relevant trading period.
On 1 December 2005, the issue was reported to Fujitsu after a postmaster
reported that their counter hung while attempting to process a Transaction
Correction. Peak PC0129587 (FSL_04/555) was raised as a result. The issue
led to a number of Peaks, including PC0129774 (FSL_04/548) and PC0130057
(FSL_04/551).
On 6 December 2005, Fujitsu was able to reproduce the issue by using the
message store from the counter. That day, the issue was passed to the
Development team, which discovered the bug.
On 7 December 2005, the Development team created a fix and proposed a
workaround to allow postmasters to continue until the fix was rolled out. Fujitsu
also identified six other branches which were affected by the issue and planned
to contact them to tell them how to handle it.
Page 154 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
On 8 December 2005, Fujitsu notified POL of the problem and recommended
that Transaction Correction messages be produced without long strings of
characters.
In December 2005, the fix was tested and released to one of the affected
branches so that they could attempt to rollover to the next trading period, and the
branch confirmed the rollover had been successful. In January 2006, the fix was
put on general release to the live estate and several offices used it to process
Transaction Corrections and complete rollover.
Page 155 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 21 —- TRANSACTION CORRECTION ISSUES — ISSUE 3
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/544 to FSL_04/559).
Issue 3 concerned a reporting issue relating to Transaction Corrections that was
caused by a disparity between the time period for which a postmaster could
request a Processed Transaction Correction report on the system, and the time
period for which records were held in the branch database.
The Processed Transaction Correction report provided postmasters with a list of
Transaction Corrections that had been processed over a certain time period. The
reporting function on the system indicated that postmasters could request a
report of Transaction Corrections that had been processed up to two months
prior. However, the underlying database only stored Transaction Corrections in
the branch records for 40 days. Consequently, Transaction Corrections that had
been processed more than 40 days before the date of producing the report would
not be displayed, even though the postmaster had selected a time period of more
than 40 days prior.
On 14 September 2010, the issue was reported to Fujitsu by the NBSC and Peak
PC0204350 (FSL_04/557) was raised. A postmaster was trying to understand a
cash loss in their account and had tried to review all Transaction Corrections that
had been processed in the last two months. The postmaster had accepted
Transaction Corrections in July (within the two-month time range); however,
these Transaction Corrections did not appear on the report.
On 20 October 2010, after obtaining further information from the postmaster, the
SSC determined that Transaction Correction records were only kept in the
Page 156 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
branch database for 40 days and passed the issue to the Development team. In
October 2010, the Development team investigated and rectified the issue by
changing the relevant database so that it retained records for two months.
KEL obengc2336R (FSL_04/558) was recorded to ensure that if the situation
arose again, postmasters could be advised.
Page 157 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 22 - BUGS INTRODUCED BY PEAK FIXES — ISSUE 1
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/560 to FSL_04/565).
° In this incident (PC0053160) if incorrect keys were pressed while generating a
report, the screen could freeze (FSL_04/562). This was identified in August 2000
by a Fujitsu tester, testing a future release. Tests were carried out to see if the
problem could arise in the live system. Fujitsu considered that while the issue
had occurred on a training counter, the issue could occur in the live system. It
was established that the root cause was a problem which had already been
identified in earlier PiniCLs and was resolved in the M1 release.
Page 158 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 22 —- BUGS INTRODUCED BY PEAK FIXES — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/560 to FSL_04/565).
Issue 2 concerned a software bug that was introduced by a previously applied fix
to another Peak. The issue was revealed by a cash account discrepancy, which
was reported by a postmaster, relating to the declaration and recording of
cheques.
On 13 January 2004, the postmaster reported the issue to the NBSC and Peak
PC0098230 (FSL_04/565) was raised. The call was passed on to the SSC. On
14 January 2004, the SSC spoke with the postmaster to understand and
diagnose the issue. The SSC determined that the discrepancy had occurred as
there had been a recent change to the EPOSS code, and the postmaster had
been using non-standard procedures when accounting for cheques. The
postmaster’s procedure had worked before the change to the EPOSS code (i.e.,
it did not cause cash account discrepancies); however, following the change to
the EPOSS code, the postmaster’s process now caused a discrepancy.
On 15 January 2004, it was confirmed that the postmaster’s accounts had
balanced, and Fujitsu advised the postmaster of the correct procedures when
accounting for cheques and spoke with a POL auditor who was on site with the
postmaster. KEL AChambers2258K was recorded (FSL_04/564).
On 16 January 2004, the Development team identified the code error was a fix
for previous PiniCL PC0097081 (FSL_04/563). On 19 January 2004, the Peak
noted that information concerning the bug was to be passed onto POL.
Page 159 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
On 20 January 2004, the Development team determined that the issue could
occur in other circumstances and could potentially cause other issues. The fix
was developed, tested and released on or around 5 March 2004.
Page 160 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 22 - BUGS INTRODUCED BY PEAK FIXES — ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/560 to FSL_04/565).
e — PinlICL _PC0049702 (FSL_04/561) was opened on 7 July 2000 and PiniCL
PC0052776 (FSL_04/560) was opened on 21 August 2000 after defects were
found during system testing. According to the PinlCLs, these issues appear to
have occurred in the test environment only. The issue was fixed in August 2000.
The issue was tested and no recurrence of the problem was found.
Page 161 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 23 - BUREAU DE CHANGE — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/566 to FSL_04/582).
Issues 1 concerned incidents relating to Bureau de Change that resulted in
discrepancies in three separate Post Office branches.
On 6 December 2005, Peak PC0129767 (FSL_04/567) was raised after a
postmaster wrote to “Subpostmaster Magazine” about an issue they experienced
when reversing a foreign currency transaction. Fujitsu investigated the issue and
determined Horizon was working as designed, and the postmaster had
misunderstood how to reverse the foreign currency transaction. Fujitsu
determined that improvements in the associated user documentation provided
by POL to postmasters could potentially improve their understanding of the
matter. KEL AChambers2252R (FSL_04/566) was recorded to describe the
issue and its resolution.
On 10 July 2006, the issue arose again at another Post Office branch and was
resolved the same day on the basis of the KEL (Peak PC0137437)
(FSL_04/568).
Page 162 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 23 - BUREAU DE CHANGE — ISSUE 2
. Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/566 to FSL_04/582).
° Issue 2 concerned an incident relating to Bureau de Change that resulted in
discrepancies in three separate Post Office branches.
° On 29 November 2007, a Peak was raised (PC0151787, FSL_04/569). On 3
December 2007, following its investigation, Fujitsu determined that the
discrepancy was caused due to incorrect cash account declarations. Fujitsu
informed second line support at the NBSC concerning the issue.
Page 163 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 23 - BUREAU DE CHANGE — ISSUE 3
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/566 to FSL_04/582).
Issue 3 related to various incidents that were raised with Fujitsu in 2010 after
branches reported that Bureau de Change rates displayed on the currency rates
board did not match the rates on Horizon. The incorrect rates displayed on the
currency rates board did not affect the rates used by Horizon for transactions
when currency was sold.
On 10 June 2010, Fujitsu’s quality centre identified that rates were being
inconsistently displayed during build testing. Peak PC0200042 (FSL_04/578)
was raised in response. On 11 June 2010, a postmaster reported a similar issue
and Peak PC0200090 (FSL_04/576) was raised. Further Peaks were raised
relating to the issue following further reports from postmasters, which were
received via the NBSC, including Peak PC0200399 (FSL_04/573), Peak
PC0200435 (FSL_04/572) and Peak PC0201340 (FSL_04/574). Following
investigations undertaken by Fujitsu, it was found that the issue occurred when:
a. the currency rates board did not display the same number of
significant figures in decimals as the Horizon counter application; or
b. I when some, but not all, Post Office branch counters were migrated to
HNG-X from Legacy Horizon (which occurred in one instance and
affected one branch).
The issue in the counter code was diagnosed and a fix proposed by 14 June
2010. The fix was produced in accordance with the development lifecycle and
Page 164 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
released in September 2010. Where the issue related to counter migration,
Fujitsu arranged for the affected counter to be migrated to HNG-X.
Four KELs were recorded in relation to the issue: obengc5443L (FSL_04/575),
obengc4026R (FSL_04/577), Agnihotriv245L (FSL_04/571) and AgnihotriV917N
(FSL_04/570). KEL Agnihotriv245L noted that the issue was a bug in the code.
Page 165 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 24 - WRONG BRANCH CUSTOMER CHANGE
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/583 to FSL_04/588).
The ‘Wrong Branch Customer Change Displayed’ issue related to Smartpost
transactions. When carrying out Smartpost transactions for cash, the Horizon
system calculated the change due to customers incorrectly. The issue could
impact branches by causing cash shortfalls.
The issue was reported by a postmaster, and Peak PC0128728 (FSL_04/588)
was raised on 4 November 2005. The postmaster had made several calls to
Fujitsu’s Service Desk and attempts had been made to fix the problem by
swapping out equipment, which did not rectify the issue. The issue was escalated
to the SSC, and by 9 November 2005, Fujitsu suspected there was a software-
related issue, which was confirmed with the postmaster on 10 November 2005.
The issue was escalated to the Development team, which determined that the
issue was caused by a fault in a script that was distributed as part of reference
data. By 18 November 2005, a code fix relating to the reference data was
developed, tested and released. The postmaster was informed that the code fix
had been released.
In December 2005, three further Peaks concerning the same issue were raised
by postmasters contacting Fujitsu and/or POL (PC0129791, FSL_04/587;
PC0129811, FSL_04/584; PC0129835, FSL_04/585). Upon further investigation
by Fujitsu, it was determined that due to a process error, the code fix relating to
the reference data had not been distributed to all counters. Consequently, a
correct version of the script was distributed to all counters on 7 December 2005.
Page 166 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
KEL AChambers4134R was recorded in relation to the issue (FSL_04/586).
Page 167 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 25 - LYCA TOP UP
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/589 to FSL_04/596).
The Lyca Top Up issue was a reference data error that caused the Post Office
branch counter to crash and log the user out of the Horizon system when
attempting to process a top-up for a Lyca mobile phone account. If the
transaction was recovered, and depending on the action taken by the postmaster
after logging back into the Horizon system, the issue led to two scenarios:
a. branch accounts would show a shortfall equal to the value of the top-
up transaction amount; or
b. —areconciliation discrepancy would show in daily reconciliation reports
that were automatically produced by Horizon for POL.
A postmaster reported the issue to Fujitsu on 12 August 2010, and Fujitsu raised
Peak PC0202894 (FSL_04/595). Further Peaks were raised following further
reports from postmasters experiencing the issue and as a result of daily
reconciliation reports produced by the Horizon system, including: Peaks
PC0203108 (FSL_04/591), PC0203137 (FSL_04/590), PC0203284
(FSL_04/596) and PC0203215 (FSL_04/594). Fujitsu investigated the issue and
determined that the error occurred because of reference data that was not in the
format expected by the counter application. Two KELs were recorded describing
the issue (KEL Ballantj020J, FSL_04/592 and KEL suklabaidyas4944I,
FSL_04/589).
On 21 August 2010, Fujitsu confirmed that corrected reference data had been
validated by POL and released to the live estate. Where necessary,
Page 168 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
discrepancies were corrected by POL issuing a Transaction Correction in
accordance with the BIMS reconciliation process (FSL_04/309 and
FSL_04/310).
Page 169 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 26 — TPSC250 REPORT - ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/597 to FSL_04/621).
Issue 1 concerned a coding error that caused the TPSC250 report to display
incorrect totals for a Post Office branch when a particular ‘Smartpost’ transaction
was carried out.
The TPSC250 report was only used by Fujitsu for reconciliation purposes. The
report was not used by postmasters or POL, and the data contained in the report
was not otherwise communicated to postmasters or POL.
The issue was raised in Peak PC0115804 (FSL_04/597) on 10 February 2005,
after it was identified the TPSC250 report showed a difference in the total amount
reported to TPS and the counter. On 14 February 2005, Fujitsu commenced
investigating the issue, and determined that the issue was caused by Smartpost
transactions where a prepaid card was used to pay for postage of lower value,
and change was given to the customer. KEL AChambers253L was logged
(FSL_04/617).
Between March and July 2005, further Peaks were raised concerning the same
issue. For example, Peaks PC0117659 (FSL_04/599), PC0118350
(FSL_04/600) and PC0118677 (FSL_04/601). The Development team
investigated the matter further and determined that the underlying problem had
been discovered during testing for a forthcoming Horizon release (known as
S80), and the issue would be resolved as part of that release. Following the
release of S80, no further occurrences were noted for four years.
Page 170 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
In October 2009, Peak PC0189625 (FSL_04/620) was raised reporting the same
issue and it was determined that KEL AChambers253L applied. It was decided
to monitor for reoccurrences of the issues rather than investigate the matter
further due to the launch of HNG-X.
Page 171 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 26 —- TPSC250 REPORT — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/597 to FSL_04/621).
This issue related to an application located in Fujitsu’s data centre, which formed
part of the End of Day process that collected data from branches for transmission
to POL’s back-end systems. Due to a coding error in the application, if there were
delays in the receipt of data from Riposte, due to communications issues, the
application wrote data in the wrong format causing the End of Day process to
fail. The issue impacted Fujitsu and POL, as Fujitsu was required to manually
correct the data before it could be uploaded to POL’s accounting systems, which
caused a delay to data delivery.
On 29 June 2005, Peak PC0122544 (FSL_04/614) was raised following an alert
from the data centre as the End of Day process had failed for five branches.
Fujitsu investigated the issue and identified a marker field in the data was
incorrectly formed. Fujitsu corrected the field manually and on 30 June 2005, the
data was uploaded correctly.
In June 2005, Peaks PC0122630 (FSL_04/609) and PC0122631 (FSL_04/608)
were raised, which reported errors in the TPSC250 report for one of the branches
impacted by the End of Day process failure. KEL JAnscomb1935Q (FSL_04/607)
was recorded on 30 June 2005 in relation to the issue.
A fix was tested and released by 9 August 2005. The fix for the issue was
regressed (i.e., the previous version of the application without the fix was
reinstalled) as it was considered that the fix may have caused other issues. The
Page 172 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
regression was subsequently reversed when it was confirmed that the fix had not
caused such issues.
Page 173 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 26 —- TPSC250 REPORT — ISSUE 3
° Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/597 to FSL_04/621).
° This was a similar issue to BED 26, Issue 2 above. Peak PC0122664
(FSL_04/610) was raised on 1 July 2005 due to a difference between the counter
reported totals and the TPS total in the TPSC250 report.
. The fix was for this issue was the same as the one applied for BED 26, Issue 2
above.
Page 174 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 26 - TPSC250 REPORT — ISSUE 4
° Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/597 to FSL_04/621).
° Issue 4 concerned a TPSC250 report showing a difference in the TPS and
counter totals for one Post Office branch. The incident was raised on 4 July 2005
and recorded in Peak PC0122766 (FSL_04/611). Fujitsu investigated the matter
and determined the issue was due to a failure in the counter, which required the
counter to be replaced. The incident was closed on 7 July 2005.
Page 175 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 26 - TPSC250 REPORT — ISSUE 5
° Issue 5 concerned a particular type of Smartpost transaction that produced
intermittent exceptions on reconciliation reports. The Peak and KEL associated
with this issue — PC0156718 (FSL_04/618) and KEL Ballantj2547K
(FSL_04/621) — are related to and noted in BED 27 below.
Page 176 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 27-TPS
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/618, FSL_04/619, FSL_04/621 to FSL_04/632).
The incident related to issues found in TPS reports when reconciling transactions
carried out through the Smartpost service.
The issue was identified by Fujitsu’s MSU on 14 November 2006 as part of
Fujitsu’s daily monitoring of reconciliation reports after discrepancies were
identified in the TPS reports. Peak PC0141145 (FSL_04/619) was raised as a
result, and the issue was recorded in KEL BallantJ2547K (FSL_04/621). A further
40 Peaks were identified that reference KEL BallantJ2547K, including Peak
PC0156718 (FSL_04/618).
Fujitsu investigated the issue, and by 16 November 2006, it was identified that a
message had been incorrectly formed and the issue was escalated to the
Development team. In most cases, where the issue occurred, an OCR procedure
needed to be carried out, as part of which, transaction data provided to POL’s
back-end systems was corrected.
Despite Fujitsu’s investigations, the root cause of the erroneous reporting could
not be identified. The Peak was closed on 30 September 2008.
Page 177 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 28 - DROP AND GO
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/633 to FSL_04/635).
The Drop and Go issue occurred when a customer at a Post Office branch
customer topped up a “Drop and Go” pre-payment card, and the Horizon system
confirmed the top-up onto the pre-payment card despite that amount not being
transferred to back-end systems.
Peak PC0260269 (FSL_04/633) was raised with Fujitsu on 5 July 2017 by
Accenture, who were attempting to reconcile the issue in the back-end systems.
Fujitsu investigated the issue, and identified the problem was either caused by
user error or by an error in the AP-ACD script, and the incident was routed to
Atos who were responsible for script maintenance. The Peak was closed and
KEL cardce235Q (FSL_04/634) was recorded.
Another incident relating to the same issue was raised with Fujitsu on 21 August
2018 (PC0273234, FSL_04/635). Fujitsu investigated the issue that day and
confirmed the cause was lack of error checking in the AP-ACD when a timeout
had occurred. Fujitsu made POL and other parties aware of the issue in
accordance with standard incident management processes.
Page 178 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 29 —- NETWORK BANKING — ISSUE 1
Documents relating to Fujitsu's knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinlICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/636 to FSL_04/640).
The issue concerned one Post Office branch, which experienced intermittent
network problems due to faults on its BT line. In two instances, this resulted in a
situation where authorisation from a customer’s bank account for a transaction
was delayed and the postmaster had cancelled the transaction. As a result, the
customer's money was showing as being withdrawn from their bank account, but
they had not received cash at the Post Office branch (as the money had been
ring-fenced by customer's bank).
On 1 October 2004, the postmaster at the affected branch contacted the NBSC
and the call was forwarded to Fujitsu’s first line support. The postmaster reported
that their communications line was down and that there had been issues with
their customers’ accounts. Peak PC0109020 (FSL_04/638) was raised as a
result.
Fujitsu undertook investigations in relation to the communications network at the
affected branch. Fujitsu switched the affected branch to a_ different
communications method, which appeared to resolve the network issues.
On 14 October 2004, Fujitsu asked the postmaster to carry out a “hard reboot”
of the counter at their branch. On 15 October 2004, Fujitsu investigated the root
cause of the discrepancies and determined that it was a timing issue between
the customer's bank and the counter. One of the customer transactions had
resolved itself automatically and the other transaction was provided to the MSU
for resolution through reconciliation processes.
Page 179 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 29 —- NETWORK BANKING — ISSUE 2
Documents relating to Fujitsu’s knowledge, rectification and communication of
this issue, including PinICLs/Peaks and KELs, are set out in Appendix 2
(FSL_04/636 to FSL_04/640).
The issue concerned one Post Office branch that experienced network
communication issues, which prevented them from accessing online services.
On 23 January 2007, the postmaster at the affected branch reported that they
were unable to access online services. Fujitsu raised Peak PC0142872
(FSL_04/640) and commenced investigating the issue.
On 25 January 2007, the postmaster reported that they were no longer
experiencing communications issues at their branch, and it was suspected that
severe weather in the region had been the cause. It was not reported or
otherwise identified to have impacted other Post Office branches or branch
accounts. Fujitsu continued to monitor the situation until 29 January 2007.
Page 180 of 193
Al
PPENDIX 2: LIST OF RELEVANT PINICLS, PEAKS AND KELS
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
Teference)
im it!
‘onti
FUJ00081064
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch PC0194381 POINQ0087235F FSL_04/311
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch PC0204263 POINQ0087333F FUJ00081162 I FSL_04/312
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch PC0204765 POINQ0087364F FUJ00081193 I FSL_04/313
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch ballantj1759Q POINQ0087736F FUJ00081565 I FSL_04/314
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch PC0203864 POINQ0087757F FUJ00081586 I FSL_04/315
BED 1 — Receipts and Payment Mismatch wrightm33145J POINQ0087779F FUJ00081608 I FSL_04/316
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0012751 POINQ0024157F FUJ00017986 I FSL_04/317
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0032835 POINQ0038084F FUJ00031913 I FSL_04/318
BED 2 — Callendar square JBallantyne5245K POINQ0065220F FUJ00059049 I FSL_04/319
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0056922 POINQ0079496F FUJ00070841 I FSL_04/320
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0057981 POINQ0080557F FUJ00071767 I FSL_04/321
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0057957 POINQ0081198F FUJ00072379 I FSL_04/322
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0058994 POINQ0085136F FUJ00075544 I FSL_04/323
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0075892 POINQ0089796F FUJ00083625 I FSL_04/324
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0083101 POINQ0089802F FUJ00083631 I FSL_04/325
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0083563 POINQ0089804F FUJ00083633 I FSL_04/326
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0104233 POINQ0089813F FUJ00083642 I FSL_04/327
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0103925 POINQ0089814F FUJ00083643 I FSL_04/328
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0103864 POINQ0089815F FUJ00083644 I FSL_04/329
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0106213 POINQ0089816F FUJ00083645 I FSL_04/330
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0111976 POINQ0089817F FUJ00083646 I FSL_04/331
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0116670 POINQ0089820F FUJ00083649 I FSL_04/332
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0117083 POINQ0089821F FUJ00083650 I FSL_04/333
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0086212 POINQ0089822F FUJ00083651 I FSL_04/334
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0101472 POINQ0089823F FUJ00083652 I FSL_04/335
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0126042 POINQ0089825F FUJ00083654 I FSL_04/336
Page 181 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
L reference) _
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0122035 POINQ0089832F FUJ00083661 I FSL_04/337
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0126376 POINQ0089834F FUJ00083663 I FSL_04/338
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0127246 POINQ0089838F FUJ00083667 I FSL_04/339
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0193012 POINQO089890F FUJ00083719 I FSL_04/340
BED 2 — Callendar square JSimpkins338Q POINQ0089891F FUJ00083720 I FSL_04/341
BED 2 — Callendar square PC0078592 POINQ0126710F FUJ00120518 I FSL_04/342
BED 3 — Suspense Account Bug PC0224126 POINQO090909F FUJ00084738 I FSL_04/343
BED 3 — Suspense Account Bug PC0223870 POINQ0091023F FUJ00084852 I FSL_04/344
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0246949 POINQ0092002F FUJ00085831 I FSL_04/345
BED 4 - Dalmellington Acha621P POINQ0092004F FUJ00085833 I FSL_04/346
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0247207 POINQ0092014F FUJ00085843 I FSL_04/347
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0247250 POINQ0092017F FUJ00085846 I FSL_04/348
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0246997 POINQ0092084F FUJ00085913 I FSL_04/349
BED 4 - Dalmellington Acha621P POINQ0092095F FUJ00085924 I FSL_04/350
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0248024 POINQ0092152F FUJ00085981 I FSL_04/351
BED 4 - Dalmellington PC0246997 POINQ0092243F FUJ00086072 I FSL_04/352
BED 5 — Remming In PC0195911 POINQ0087737F FUJ00081566 I FSL_04/353
BED 5 — Remming In PC0195511 POINQ0126711F FUJ00120519 I FSL_04/354
BED 5 — Remming In PC0196154 POINQ0126712F FUJ00120520 I FSL_04/355
BED 5 — Remming In PC0196120 POINQ0126713F FUJ00120521 I FSL_04/356
BED 5 — Remming In PC0196671 POINQ0126714F FUJ00120522 I FSL_04/357
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197753 POINQ0126716F FUJ00120524 I FSL_04/358
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197605 POINQ0126718F FUJ00120526 I FSL_04/359
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197828 POINQ0126719F FUJ00120527 I FSL_04/360
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197838 POINQ0126721F FUJ00120529 I FSL_04/361
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197034 POINQ0126723F FUJ00120531 I FSL_04/362
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197837 POINQ0126726F FUJ00120534 I FSL_04/363
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197873 POINQ0126728F FUJ00120536 I FSL_04/364
Page 182 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ference) bE
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197032 POINQ0126730F FUJ00120538 I FSL_04/365
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197872 POINQ0126732F FUJ00120540 I FSL_04/366
BED 5 — Remming In PC0197651 POINQ0126734F FUJ00120542 I FSL_04/367
BED 5 — Remming In PC0195380 POINQ0126736F FUJ00120544 I FSL_04/368
BED 5 — Remming In PC0198115 POINQ0126748F FUJ00120556 I FSL_04/369
BED 5 — Remming In acha4221Q POINQ0126750F FUJ00120558 I FSL_04/370
BED 5 — Remming In PC0207466 POINQ0126751F FUJ00120559 I FSL_04/371
BED 5 — Remming In PC0203085 POINQ0126755F FUJ00120563 I FSL_04/372
BED 5 — Remming In acha4221Q POINQ0126761F FUJ00120569 I FSL_04/373
BED 5 — Remming In PC0226230 POINQ0126762F FUJ00120570 I FSL_04/374
BED 5 — Remming In PC0246629 POINQ0126763F FUJ00120571 I FSL_04/375
BED 5 — Remming In PC0251952 POINQ0126764F FUJ00120572 I FSL_04/376
BED 6 — Remming Out acha4221Q POINQ0126761F FUJ00120569 I FSL_04/373
BED 6 — Remming Out GMaxwell3853P- POINQ0126765F FUJ00120573 I FSL_04/377
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0120937 POINQ0126766F FUJ00120574 I FSL_04/378
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143501 POINQ0126767F FUJ00120575 I FSL_04/379
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143466 POINQ0126768F FUJ00120576 I FSL_04/380
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143439 POINQ0126769F FUJ00120577 I FSL_04/381
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143499 POINQ0126770F FUJ00120578 I FSL_04/382
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143441 POINQ0126771F FUJ00120579 I FSL_04/383
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143539 POINQ0126772F FUJ00120580 I FSL_04/384
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143440 POINQ0126773F FUJ00120581 I FSL_04/385
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143514 POINQ0126774F FUJ00120582 I FSL_04/386
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143506 POINQ0126775F FUJ00120583 I FSL_04/387
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143515 POINQ0126776F FUJ00120584 I FSL_04/388
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143513 POINQ0126777F FUJ00120585 I FSL_04/389
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143508 POINQ0126778F FUJ00120586 I FSL_04/390
BED 6 — Remming Out acha508S POINQ0126779F FUJ00120587 I FSL_04/391
Page 183 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
reference)
PC0143500
POINQ0126780F
BED 6 — Remming Out FUJ00120588 I FSL_04/392
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143511 POINQ0126781F FUJ00120589 I FSL_04/393
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143507 POINQ0126783F FUJ00120591 FSL_04/394
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143502 POINQ0126784F FUJ00120592 I FSL_04/395
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143503 POINQ0126785F FUJ00120593 I FSL_04/396
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143682 POINQ0126786F FUJ00120594 I FSL_04/397
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143504 POINQ0126787F FUJ00120595 I FSL_04/398
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0144933 POINQ0126788F FUJ00120596 I FSL_04/399
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0140829 POINQ0126789F FUJ00120597 I FSL_04/400
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0143435 POINQ0126790F FUJ00120598 I FSL_04/401
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0140826 POINQ0126791F FUJ00120599 I FSL_04/402
BED 6 — Remming Out PC0144937 POINQ0126792F FUJ00120600 I FSL_04/403
BED 6 — Remming Out GCSimpson1936L POINQ0126793F FUJ00120601 I FSL_04/404
BED 6 — Remming Out maxwellg460L POINQ0126794F FUJ00120602 I FSL_04/405
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0198077 POINQ0090840F FUJ00084669 I FSL_04/406
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0198259 POINQ0102175F FUJ00096004 I FSL_04/407
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue carde2043L POINQ0126795F FUJ00120603 I FSL_04/408
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197756 POINQ0126796F FUJ00120604 I FSL_04/409
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197800 POINQ0126797F FUJ00120605 I FSL_04/410
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197758 POINQ0126798F FUJ00120606 I FSL_04/411
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PorterS199P POINQ0126799F FUJ00120607 I FSL_04/412
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue Acha5259Q (v1) POINQ0126800F FUJ00120608 I FSL_04/413
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0198066 POINQ0126801F FUJ00120609 I FSL_04/414
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197797 POINQ0126802F FUJ00120610 I FSL_04/415
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue Acha5259Q (v2) POINQ0126804F FUJ00120612 I FSL_04/416
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0198677 POINQ0126805F FUJ00120613 I FSL_04/417
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0198678 POINQ0126808F FUJ00120616 I FSL_04/418
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0199719 POINQ0126809F FUJ00120617 I FSL_04/419
Page 184 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
reference)
PC0196767
POINQ0126810F
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue FUJ00120618 I FSL_04/420
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197409 POINQ0126819F FUJ00120627 I FSL_04/421
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue cardc2043L POINQ0126826F FUJ00120634 I FSL_04/422
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0204497 POINQ0126827F FUJ00120635 I FSL_04/423
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0204396 POINQ0126828F FUJ00120636 I FSL_04/424
BED 7 — Local Suspense account issue PC0197261 POINQ0126830F FUJ00120638 I FSL_04/425
BED 8 — Recovery Issues dsed2640M POINQ0126838F FUJ00120646 I FSL_04/426
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0198352 POINQ0126839F FUJ00120647 I FSL_04/427
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0197769 POINQ0126848F FUJ00120656 I FSL_04/428
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0193463 POINQ0126860F FUJ00120668 I FSL_04/429
BED 8 — Recovery Issues cardc464Q POINQ0126861F FUJO0120669 I FSL_04/430
BED 8 — Recovery Issues acha5650L POINQ0126862F FUJ00120670 I FSL_04/431
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0223229 POINQ0126863F FUJ00120671 I FSL_04/432
BED 8 — Recovery Issues dsed4010N POINQ0126866F FUJ00120674 I FSL_04/433
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0256502 POINQ0126867F FUJ00120675 I FSL_04/434
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0256566 POINQ0126870F FUJ00120678 I FSL_04/435
BED 8 — Recovery Issues seng2048K POINQ0126871F FUJ00120679 I FSL_04/436
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0264632 POINQ0126872F FUJ00120680 I FSL_04/437
BED 8 — Recovery Issues PC0277508 POINQ0126873F FUJ00120681 I FSL_04/438
BED 8 — Recovery Issues acha959T POINQ0126876F FUJ00120684 I FSL_04/439
BED 9 — Reversals PCo0089918 POINQ0126877F FUJ00120685 I FSL_04/440
BED 9 — Reversals PCco090109 POINQ0126886F FUJ00120694 I FSL_04/441
BED 9 — Reversals PC0091284 POINQ0126888F FUJ00120696 I FSL_04/442
BED 9 — Reversals PSteed2847N POINQ0126889F FUJ00120697 I FSL_04/443
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0043811 POINQ0069461F FUJ00062016 I FSL_04/444
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0046811 POINQ0074762F FUJO0066601 I FSL_04/445
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0033128 POINQ0080947F FUJ00072143 I FSL_04/446
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0123319 POINQ0092553F FUJ00086382 I FSL_04/447
Page 185 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
(FUJ...
POINQ0092557F
FUJ00086386
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies FSL_04/448
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0132133 POINQ0092627F FUJ00086456 I FSL_04/449
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0121925 POINQ0092638F FUJ00086467 I FSL_04/450
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies MScardifield2219S POINQ0092659F FUJ00086488 I FSL_04/451
BED 10 — Data Tree Build Failure Discrepancies PC0039313 POINQ0126890F FUJ00120698 I FSL_04/452
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0043685 POINQ0049678F FUJ00043507 I FSL_04/453
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0045509 POINQ0050444F FUJ00044273 I FSL_04/454
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0047609 POINQ0052150F FUJ00045979 I FSL_04/455
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0044101 POINQ0052241F FUJ00046070 I FSL_04/456
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0040754 POINQ0052393F FUJ00046222 I FSL_04/457
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0048630 POINQ0052564F FUJ00046393 I FSL_04/458
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0044232 POINQ0069638F FUJ00062193 I FSL_04/459
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0050418 POINQ0070826F FUJ00063277 I FSL_04/460
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0050415 POINQ0070844F FUJ00063295 I FSL_04/461
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0052804 POINQ0074322F FUJ00066305 I FSL_04/462
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0052704 POINQ0074367F FUJ00066341 I FSL_04/463
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0052320 POINQ0074401F FUJ00066372 I FSL_04/464
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0052575 POINQ0074843F FUJO0066669 I FSL_04/465
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0053975 POINQ0075816F FUJ00067376 I FSL_04/466
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0054846 POINQ0076876F FUJ00068300 I FSL_04/467
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0054973 POINQ0077113F FUJ00068526 I FSL_04/468
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0056661 POINQ0078716F FUJ00070073 I FSL_04/469
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0056915 POINQ0078937F FUJ00070288 I FSL_04/470
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0056960 POINQ0079037F FUJ00070388 I FSL_04/471
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0050861 POINQ0080765F FUJ00071966 I FSL_04/472
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0068442 POINQ0126891F FUJ00120699 I FSL_04/473
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0068633 POINQ0126892F FUJ00120700 I FSL_04/474
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0075312 POINQ0126893F FUJ00120701 I FSL_04/475
Page 186 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
reference)
PC0076065
POINQ0126894F
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies FUJ00120702 I FSL_04/476
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies PC0073855 POINQ0126895F FUJ00120703 I FSL_04/477
BED 11 — Girobank Discrepancies DRowe440R POINQ0126896F FUJ00120704 I FSL_04/478
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues JBallantyne5328R POINQ0065257F FUJO0059086 I FSL_04/479
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0051255 POINQ0078047F FUJO0069436 I FSL_04/480
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0058528 POINQ0081357F FUJ00072538 I FSL_04/481
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0058686 POINQ0082546F FUJ00073490 I FSL_04/482
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0052823 POINQ0085212F FUJ00075614 I FSL_04/483
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0071836 POINQ0126897F FUJ00120705 I FSL_04/484
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0078204 POINQ0126898F FUJ00120706 I FSL_04/485
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0064574 POINQ0126899F FUJ00120707 I FSL_04/486
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0133822 POINQ0126900F FUJ00120708 I FSL_04/487
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0138926 POINQ0126901F FUJ00120709 I FSL_04/488
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0153851 POINQ0126902F FUJ00120710 I FSL_04/489
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues PC0153660 POINQ0126903F FUJ00120711 I FSL_04/490
BED 12 — Counter-Replacement issues DRowe4629L POINQ0126904F FUJ00120712 I FSL_04/491
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PothapragadaC4913L POINQ0126905F FUJ00120713 I FSL_04/492
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0200502 POINQ0126906F FUJ00120714 I FSL_04/493
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0207834 POINQ0126918F FUJ00120726 I FSL_04/494
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0208918 POINQ0126922F FUJ00120730 I FSL_04/495
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0205404 POINQ0126923F FUJ00120731 I FSL_04/496
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0209602 POINQ0126925F FUJ00120733 I FSL_04/497
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies pothapragadac4359R POINQ0126934F FUJ00120742 I FSL_04/498
BED 13 — Withdrawn Stock Discrepancies PC0208292 POINQ0126935F FUJ00120743 I FSL_04/499
BED 14 — Bureau Discrepancies PC0261710 POINQ0126947F FUJ00120755 I FSL_04/500
BED 14 — Bureau Discrepancies PC0265443 POINQ0126948F FUJ00120756 I FSL_04/501
BED 14 — Bureau Discrepancies PC0261541 POINQ0126985F FUJ00120793 I FSL_04/502
BED 14 — Bureau Discrepancies PC0277076 POINQ0126988F FUJ00120796 I FSL_04/503
Page 187 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
: reference) _
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PC0051108 POINQ0071802F FUJ00064193 I FSL_04/504
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PC0052025 POINQ0073096F FUJO0065316 I FSL_04/505
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PC0063755 POINQ0092841F FUJO0086670 I FSL_04/506
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PC0064809 POINQ0092843F FUJO0086672 I FSL_04/507
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PCc0064922 POINQ0092845F FUJO0086674 I FSL_04/508
BED 15 — Phantom Transactions PC0065021 POINQ0092851F FUJO0086680 I FSL_04/509
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0033128 POINQ0080947F FUJ00072143 I FSL_04/446
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0044966 POINQ0051383F FUJ00045212 I FSL_04/510
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0040243 POINQ0071037F FUJ00063485 I FSL_04/511
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0047955 POINQ0072865F FUJ00065135 I FSL_04/512
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0045529 POINQ0073032F FUJ00065277 I FSL_04/513
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0049578 POINQ0073244F FUJ00065453 I FSL_04/514
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0045847 POINQ0073611F FUJO0065695 I FSL_04/515
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0039832 POINQ0073930F FUJO0065960 I FSL_04/516
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0204872 POINQ0087299F FUJ00081128 I FSL_04/517
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0075240 POINQ0127038F FUJ00120846 I FSL_04/518
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0077253 POINQ0127039F FUJ00120847 I FSL_04/519
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0075415 POINQ0127040F FUJ00120848 I FSL_04/520
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PCO0076869 POINQ0127041F FUJ00120849 I FSL_04/521
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0077508 POINQ0127042F FUJ00120850 I FSL_04/522
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues PC0236246 POINQ0127060F FUJ00120868 I FSL_04/523
BED 16 — Reconciliation Issues AllenD443311 POINQ0127061F FUJ00120869 I FSL_04/524
BED 17 — Branch customer discrepancies PC0156174 POINQ0127062F FUJ00120870 I FSL_04/525
BED 17 — Branch customer discrepancies PC0156246 POINQ0127063F FUJ00120871 FSL_04/526
BED 18 — Concurrent Logins PC0051813 POINQ0073107F FUJ00065327 I FSL_04/527
BED 18 — Concurrent Logins PC0051485 POINQ0073880F FUJ00065928 I FSL_04/528
BED 18 — Concurrent Logins PC0051327 POINQ0081116F FUJ00072297 I FSL_04/529
BED 18 — Concurrent Logins PC0059635 POINQ0081871F FUJ00072951 I FSL_04/530
Page 188 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
reference)
BED 18 — Concurrent Logins PC0027581 POINQ0085155F FUJ00075563 I FSL_04/531
BED 19 — Post & GoTA Discrepancies in POLSAP PC0219432 POINQ0127064F FUJ00120872 I FSL_04/532
BED 19 — Post & GoTA Discrepancies in POLSAP PC0220393 POINQ0127065F FUJ00120873 I FSL_04/533
BED 19 — Post & GoTA Discrepancies in POLSAP PC0218702 POINQ0127069F FUJ00120877 I FSL_04/534
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0197643 POINQ0127070F FUJ00120878 I FSL_04/535
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0214982 POINQ0127072F FUJ00120880 I FSL_04/536
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0220532 POINQ0127073F FUJ00120881 FSL_04/537
BED 20 — Recovery failures surs1034R POINQ0127074F FUJ00120882 I FSL_04/538
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0241242 POINQ0127075F FUJ00120883 I FSL_04/539
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0241216 POINQ0127078F FUJ00120886 I FSL_04/540
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0241528 POINQ0127088F FUJO0120896 I FSL_04/541
BED 20 — Recovery failures PC0239846 POINQ0127098F FUJ00120906 I FSL_04/542
BED 20 — Recovery failures acha959T POINQ0127107F FUJ00120915 I FSL_04/543
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0118562 POINQ0127108F FUJ00120916 I FSL_04/544
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0114154 POINQ0127109F FUJ00120917 I FSL_04/545
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0120459 POINQ0127110F FUJ00120918 I FSL_04/546
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0121331 POINQ0127111F FUJ00120919 I FSL_04/547
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0129774 POINQ0127112F FUJ00120920 I FSL_04/548
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130019 POINQ0127113F FUJ00120921 I FSL_04/549
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130127 POINQ0127114F FUJ00120922 I FSL_04/550
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130057 POINQ0127115F FUJ00120923 I FSL_04/551
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130123 POINQ0127116F FUJ00120924 I FSL_04/552
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130185 POINQ0127117F FUJ00120925 I FSL_04/553
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues LKiang2837P POINQ0127118F FUJ00120926 I FSL_04/554
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0129587 POINQ0127119F FUJ00120927 I FSL_04/555
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0130056 POINQ0127120F FUJ00120928 I FSL_04/556
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues PC0204350 POINQ0127121F FUJ00120929 I FSL_04/557
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues obengc2336R POINQ0127122F FUJ00120930 I FSL_04/558
Page 189 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
reference)
BED 21 — Transaction Correction Issues
PC0205567
POINQ0127123F
FUJ00120931 FSL_04/559
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes PC0052776 POINQ0074782F FUJ00066621 FSL_04/560
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes PC0049702 POINQ0075807F FUJ00067367 I FSL_04/561
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes PC0053160 POINQ0084748F FUJ00075163 I FSL_04/562
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes PC0097081 POINQ0127124F FUJ00120932 I FSL_04/563
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes AChambers2258K POINQ0127125F FUJ00120933 I FSL_04/564
BED 22 — Bugs Introduced by Peak Fixes PC0098230 POINQ0127126F FUJ00120934 I FSL_04/565
BED 23 — Bureau de Change AChambers2252R POINQ0127127F FUJ00120935 I FSL_04/566
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0129767 POINQ0127128F FUJ00120936 I FSL_04/567
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0137437 POINQ0127129F FUJ00120937 I FSL_04/568
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0151787 POINQ0127130F FUJ00120938 I FSL_04/569
BED 23 — Bureau de Change AgnihotriV917N POINQ0127131F FUJ00120939 I FSL_04/570
BED 23 — Bureau de Change Agnihotriv245L POINQ0127132F FUJ00120940 I FSL_04/571
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0200435 POINQ0127133F FUJ00120941 I FSL_04/572
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0200399 POINQ0127140F FUJ00120948 I FSL_04/573
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0201340 POINQ0127141F FUJ00120949 I FSL_04/574
BED 23 — Bureau de Change Obengc5443L POINQ0127142F FUJ00120950 I FSL_04/575
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0200090 POINQ0127143F FUJ00120951 I FSL_04/576
BED 23 — Bureau de Change Obengc4026R POINQ0127149F FUJ00120957 I FSL_04/577
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0200042 POINQ0127150F FUJ00120958 I FSL_04/578
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0209240 POINQ0127160F FUJ00120968 I FSL_04/579
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0226573 POINQ0127161F FUJ00120969 I FSL_04/580
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0254447 POINQ0127162F FUJ00120970 I FSL_04/581
BED 23 — Bureau de Change PC0260834 POINQ0127163F FUJ00120971 I FSL_04/582
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change PC0128264 POINQ0127164F FUJ00120972 I FSL_04/583
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change PC0129811 POINQ0127165F FUJ00120973 I FSL_04/584
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change PC0129835 POINQ0127166F FUJ00120974 I FSL_04/585
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change AChambers4134R POINQ0127167F FUJ00120975 I FSL_04/586
Page 190 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ference) bE
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change PC0129791 POINQ0127168F FUJ00120976 I FSL_04/587
BED 24 — Wrong Branch Customer Change PC0128728 POINQ0127169F FUJ00120977 I FSL_04/588
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up suklabaidyas49441 POINQ0127170F FUJ00120978 I FSL_04/589
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0203137 POINQ0127171F FUJ00120979 I FSL_04/590
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0203108 POINQ0127172F FUJ00120980 I FSL_04/591
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up Ballantj020J POINQ0127173F FUJ00120981 I FSL_04/592
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0202925 POINQ0127178F FUJ00120986 I FSL_04/593
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0203215 POINQ0127179F FUJ00120987 I FSL_04/594
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0202894 POINQ0127181F FUJ00120989 I FSL_04/595
BED 25 — Lyca Top Up PC0203284 POINQ0127182F FUJ00120990 I FSL_04/596
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0115804 POINQ0127184F FUJ00120992 I FSL_04/597
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0115456 POINQ0127185F FUJ00120993 I FSL_04/598
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0117659 POINQ0127186F FUJ00120994 I FSL_04/599
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0118350 POINQ0127187F FUJ00120995 I FSL_04/600
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0118677 POINQ0127188F FUJ00120996 I FSL_04/601
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0119978 POINQ0127189F FUJ00120997 I FSL_04/602
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0120063 POINQ0127190F FUJ00120998 I FSL_04/603
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122147 POINQ0127191F FUJ00120999 I FSL_04/604
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122354 POINQ0127192F FUJ00121000 I FSL_04/605
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122304 POINQ0127193F FUJ00121001 I FSL_04/606
BED 26 — TPSC250 JAnscomb1935Q POINQ0127194F FUJ00121002 I FSL_04/607
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122631 POINQ0127195F FUJ00121003 I FSL_04/608
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122630 POINQ0127196F FUJ00121004 I FSL_04/609
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122664 POINQ0127197F FUJ00121005 I FSL_04/610
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122766 POINQ0127198F FUJ00121006 I FSL_04/611
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0123056 POINQ0127199F FUJ00121007 I FSL_04/612
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0123058 POINQ0127200F FUJ00121008 I FSL_04/613
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0122544 POINQ0127201F FUJ00121009 I FSL_04/614
Page 191 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
ference) bE
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0125210 POINQ0127202F FUJ00121010 I FSL_04/615
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0125123 POINQ0127203F FUJ00121011 I FSL_04/616
BED 26 — TPSC250 AChambers253L POINQ0127204F FUJ00121012 I FSL_04/617
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0156718 POINQ0127205F FUJ00121013 I FSL_04/618
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0141145 POINQ0127206F FUJ00121014 I FSL_04/619
BED 26 — TPSC250 PC0189625 POINQ0127211F FUJ00121019 I FSL_04/620
BED 26 — TPSC250 Ballantj2547K POINQ0127213F FUJ00121021 I FSL_04/621
BED 27-—TPS PC0156718 POINQ0127205F FUJ00121013 I FSL_04/618
BED 27-—TPS PC0141145 POINQ0127206F FUJ00121014 I FSL_04/619
BED 27-—TPS Ballantj2547K POINQ0127213F FUJ00121021 I FSL_04/621
BED 27—TPS PC0142604 POINQ0127214F FUJ00121022 I FSL_04/622
BED 27-—TPS PC0131348 POINQ0127215F FUJ00121023 I FSL_04/623
BED 27 -TPS PC0152156 POINQ0127216F FUJ00121024 I FSL_04/624
BED 27-TPS PC0153333 POINQ0127217F FUJ00121025 I FSL_04/625
BED 27-TPS PC0157357 POINQ0127218F FUJ00121026 I FSL_04/626
BED 27-TPS PC0159273 POINQ0127219F FUJ00121027 I FSL_04/627
BED 27-—TPS PC0162929 POINQ0127220F FUJ00121028 I FSL_04/628
BED 27-—TPS PC0164058 POINQ0127224F FUJ00121032 I FSL_04/629
BED 27-—TPS PC0171637 POINQ0127226F FUJ00121034 I FSL_04/630
BED 27-TPS PC0174587 POINQ0127227F FUJ00121035 I FSL_04/631
BED 27-—TPS PC0196893 POINQ0127229F FUJ00121037 I FSL_04/632
BED 28 — Drop and Go PC0260269 POINQ0127232F FUJ00121040 I FSL_04/633
BED 28 — Drop and Go cardc235Q POINQ0127233F FUJ00121041 I FSL_04/634
BED 28 — Drop and Go PC0273234 POINQ0127237F FUJ00121045 I FSL_04/635
BED 29 — Network Banking CHawkes4210N POINQ0127238F FUJ00121046 I FSL_04/636
BED 29 — Network Banking SSur343P POINQ0127239F FUJ00121047 I FSL_04/637
BED 29 — Network Banking PC0109020 POINQ0127240F FUJ00121048 I FSL_04/638
BED 29 — Network Banking CHawkes1745L POINQ0127241F FUJ00121049 I FSL_04/639
Page 192 of 193
FUJ00126035
FUJ00126035
BED 29 — Network Banking
PC0142872
POINQ0127242F
FUJ00121050
FSL_04/640
Page 193 of 193