| ## Background |
|
|
| This is level 3 of 5 and continues the work of the earlier levels. The new files for this level are in `workspace/t3/`. The records from the start are in `workspace/t1/`, and the earlier results are in `workspace/t1/results/` to `workspace/t2/results/`. |
|
|
| ## Task |
|
|
| Hi, Ilse from product. Customers keep putting our DQC panel next to the EDGAR checks panel and asking why they disagree. Since EDGAR moved to release 26.3 the question comes up weekly. Engineering has put that plugin in the lab mirror; the panel spec and the proposed process change are in product. |
|
|
| For each XBRL filing in our regression corpus, what does EDGAR's own validation check and report for DQC rules, and how does that reconcile, element id by element id, with your findings register for Desmond? Every difference needs an explanation supported by the implementation and the filing, including differences in what the panels run. That goes for differences in the active rule conditions and constants too, even where the corpus findings agree. |
|
|
| Engineering also wants both panels in one validation process, VAL-2291 in the spec. Establish what that does with the plugin we ship and with 26.3. |
|
|
| Please put edgar-vs-dqc-reconciliation.xlsx and defects-import.csv in workspace/t3/results/, covering defects in our proposal or the upstream material. |
|
|
| Ilse |
|
|
| ## Input |
|
|
| - `workspace/t1/`: the records supplied with the work (`dqc_us_rules-v30.0.3/`, `dqc_us_rules/`, `edgar/`, `manuals/`, `shared/`, `taxonomies/`, `vendor/`). |
| - `workspace/t2/`: the files that came with level t2 (`dqc_us_rules-v29.0.6/`, `shared/`). |
| - `workspace/t3/`: the files that came with level t3 (`shared/`, `vendor/`). |
| - `workspace/t1/results/`: the results of level t1. |
| - `workspace/t2/results/`: the results of level t2. |
|
|
| ## Output |
|
|
| - `workspace/t3/results/edgar-vs-dqc-reconciliation.xlsx` |
| - `workspace/t3/results/defects-import.csv` |
|
|
