Error Guide Revalida

BIR Error Guide Revalida

Analytical Scenarios Set to Address BIR Errors
- 1. Which team do you represent?*
- Certified ApproverInterim Approver

WELCOME!

This questionnaire is designed to assess your understanding and application of the NEW Error Guidelines. We aim to evaluate how you apply these guidelines to resolve errors, with an emphasis on your ability to use them effectively in practical scenarios.

The form is divided into three sections: Entity Creation, Parent Linking, and Maintenance. If you are not a maintenance approver yet, you may skip the Maintenance part. However, we highly encourage all approvers who perform this task to complete it.

While this is not a formal exam, scores will be assigned to determine if you have effectively grasped the new error guidelines. The scores will be categorized as follows:

Scoring Criteria:

A. Entity Creation (EC) - Parent Linking (PL)

*For approvers who are not yet involved in Maintenance approvals*

Total Items: 14

Strongly Understood: 95% (13 out of 14)

Understood: 75% (10-12 out of 14)

B. Entity Creation (EC) - Maintenance (M)

*For approvers who are handling Maintenance approvals*

Total Items: 20

Strongly Understood: 95% (19 out of 20)

Understood: 75% (15-18 out of 20)

You are allotted 60 minutes to finish all scenarios (but no timer is set). During this time, you will be allowed to use the error guide and other resources, such as the entity data manual, to help you solve the cases.

Please answer honestly and take a moment to analyze the problem.

BE READY.

BE CAREFUL.

BE MINDFUL, and

BE DEMURE in your responses.

Good luck, and thank you for taking the time to participate!

Entity Creation
Scenario A

Joe, an analyst at RepRisk, has excelled in entity creation with minimal errors over the past six months. However, in August, Joe faced a particularly challenging file which has been a source of concern for him. Previous analyses were reviewed, revealing the following cases.

Question:

In which error type would the following be categorized if:
1. The requested entity is a complete company name that owns multiple brands. Joe identified multiple URLs but chose to create the company without linking any of them. *
Given Entity: Presto Cream-O Incorporated

Brands: Hansel, Oreo, Sky Flakes

Available URLs:

Hansel - Legal name not indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/ imprints, only the brand name

Oreo - Presto Cream-O Incorporated is the owner of the website, indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/imprints

Sky Flakes - Legal name not indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/ imprints, only the brand name
2. The requested entity was dissolved, yet there are two matches in the database. One is approved, one is not. Joe linked [RRID: 3456790] and filed it for termination in the Masterfile, rather than in the maintenance tab of the working file.*
Given entity: RC Pepsi Co Ltd

In Database:

RRID: 3456790 - RC Pepsi Co Ltd (approved)

RRID: 4567901- RC Pepsi Co Ltd (unapproved)
3. The requested name is in-scope as a company. The analyst created the entity with this profile where he has accurately entered the description, URL, headquarters, and BVD ID. However, there is uncertainty about how to input the legal name.*
Requested Name: The Cordish Companies Inc
Website: https://www.cordish.com/
4. Requested name was determined by the analyst to be a public university, which was created under the project with this profile. *
5. There were only two sources available to validate the requested entity, neither of which came from the registry or third-party sources. Joe created the entity without linking the BVD ID, as Orbis had listed the company’s status as 'unknown. *
6. The analyst created an entity but was unable to find a website or other primary sources to verify its activities. Instead, the analyst referenced Bloomberg as a secondary source. However, the description cited an incorrect source, which is DNB.*
In EA: RC Pepsi manufactures food and beverages. [Source: dnb. com]

Sources:

Bloomberg: RC Pepsi manufactures food and beverages.

DNB: RC Pepsi retails non-durable goods.
7. The requested entity was created, and four sectors, covering all the main activities of the company, were successfully linked by the analyst. However, the approver identified that the After Sales activity sector was missing.*

Parent Linking
Scenario B

As part of his quarterly rotation, Joe started refresher training on parent linking and began analyzing several entities. He soon found that this task was quite different from his usual work. During the first few days, Joe identified the following cases.

Question:

In which error type would the following be categorized if:
1. Given RRID is a Collateralized Loan Obligation. The analyst found the parent in a report labeled as "managed by" and commented, "found its manager, see p. 7 [link]; created the parent; suggest auto-link". However, during the approval, the approver identified a different parent entity using the "collateral manager" keyword.*
RRID in WF: Epidas CLO XXXII LLC

Identified parent: CVT Debit Partners US CLO Management LLC
2. The analyst found no annual report for Karina Corp (subsidiary) and has no access to Hoovers. Despite this, Karina Corp is identified as a subsidiary on Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). The subsidiary has no match in GLEIF, and there was no Global Ultimate Owner (GUO) in Orbis. However, upon checking the shareholding corporate structure in Orbis, it was seen that Trizia Inc is listed as one of the controlling shareholders. Given the lack of other sources to verify the parent-subsidiary relationship, the analyst decided to link Trizia Inc as the parent company.*
3. While the analyst accurately listed the parent RRID, parent name, same name link suggestion, and provided a complete comment, he failed to add the duplicate subsidiary RRID in its appropriate column, did not file it for maintenance.*
4. Given entity is a Philippine-based company. The analyst followed the annual report navigation for Philippines and found no report. Upon checking Hoovers, the analyst discovered that the company has a Singapore-based parent and a Korean-based Global Ultimate Parent (GUO). The report for the parent company was not available, and the analyst overlooked checking if the GUO had a report. Consequently, the analyst linked the parent based on Hoovers. The approver later found that the GUO’s Korean annual report did mention the Philippine-based given entity as a subsidiary while the Singapore-based parent in Hoovers was not and therefore has no supporting sources to prove that it is indeed the direct parent.*
5. Subsidiary was withdrawn. The analyst suggested linking the identified parent and added a complete comment to justify the relationship. The analyst then filed it for maintenance.*
6. The entity's annual report does not mention any parent company. However, upon approval, Hoovers has a parent company. The analyst did not suggest a parent to link and did not indicate that he lacked access to Hoovers.*
7. Identified as a joint venture with three parent companies in the annual report, all of which are active and existing in EA, the analyst only suggested linking two of these companies and reflected only two parents in the description.*

YesNo
Total Score (EC & PL)

Maintenance
Scenario C

Joe then began his maintenance training, which involved dealing with complex cases and learning about various corporate events. While examining his previous analyses, he came across the following cases.

Question:

In which error type would the following be categorized if:
1. The analyst created the given entity and identified three former names. All these former names were added in the "Former Name" tab. *
Given Entity: Mister Dunkin Corp

Former names in the registry:

Mister Dunkin Corp changed its name to Happy Haus Inc March 14, 2022

Happy Haus Doughnuts LLC changed its name to Mister Dunkin Corp on January 8, 2016

Krispy Doughnut LLC changed its name to Happy Haus Doughnuts LLC on January 5, 2014
2. In Joe's second analysis, he identified that the entity had undergone a name change due to a merger and acquisition. Joe, being an M1 analyst reflected the name change event but did not log the mergers and acquisition event in the maintenance tab of the working file.*
3. The analyst encountered an acquisition event stating, "Jollibee Food Corp acquired 70% of Mang Inasal Philippines Inc's stake effective October 18, 2012. On April 22, 2016, Jollibee acquired the remaining 30% stake of Mang Inasal Philippines Inc." The analyst created the acquisition event in the profile dated October 18, 2012.*
4. The analyst encountered a merger event stating, "MDi Corp merged with ESa Inc on January 1, 2024 to form KMi Solutions Corp. Following the event, MDi Corp and ESa Inc were dissolved." The analyst created the merger event without logging it to the List of Companies to be deactivated tab in the New Maintenance Masterfile.*
5. The analyst encountered a merger event stating, "iPhong Corp, an electronic gadgets manufacturer merged with and into Samsons Inc on June 12, 2024. Following the event, iPhong Corp was dissolved." The analyst logged the event in the List of Companies to be deactivated tab in the New Maintenance Masterfile. The analyst did not create the event yet but reflected the merger event in the description of the dissolved company, iPhong Corp. *
6. The analyst encountered a merger event stating, "On December 31, 2021, Paracetical NV, Biomechanic SA and MedPom Inc merged to form PMB Corp. Following the event, Paracetical NV, Biomechanic SA and MedPom Inc was dissolved." The analyst created the newly formed entity in the database, logged the event in the Companies with Complicated Structure log and reflected the event in the description of all involved companies.*
Total Score (EC, PL & M)

Impressive!

Nailed every question!

YOU'VE GOT

{totalScore242}

CORRECT ANSWERS

To see the answer key, follow this link: Click here

Impressive!

Nailed every question!

YOU'VE GOT

{totalScore242}

CORRECT ANSWERS

To see the answer key, follow this link: Click here
Should be Empty:

BIR Error Guide Revalida

Scoring Criteria:

A. Entity Creation (EC) - Parent Linking (PL)

*For approvers who are not yet involved in Maintenance approvals*

Total Items: 14

Strongly Understood: 95% (13 out of 14)

Understood: 75% (10-12 out of 14)

B. Entity Creation (EC) - Maintenance (M)

*For approvers who are handling Maintenance approvals*

Total Items: 20

Strongly Understood: 95% (19 out of 20)

Understood: 75% (15-18 out of 20)

BE READY.

BE CAREFUL.

BE MINDFUL, and

Entity Creation

Scenario A

Joe, an analyst at RepRisk, has excelled in entity creation with minimal errors over the past six months. However, in August, Joe faced a particularly challenging file which has been a source of concern for him. Previous analyses were reviewed, revealing the following cases.

In which error type would the following be categorized if:

Given Entity: Presto Cream-O Incorporated

Brands: Hansel, Oreo, Sky Flakes

Available URLs:

Hansel - Legal name not indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/ imprints, only the brand name

Oreo - Presto Cream-O Incorporated is the owner of the website, indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/imprints

Sky Flakes - Legal name not indicated in the privacy/terms of conditions/contact/ imprints, only the brand name

Given entity: RC Pepsi Co Ltd

In Database:

RRID: 3456790 - RC Pepsi Co Ltd (approved)

RRID: 4567901- RC Pepsi Co Ltd (unapproved)

In EA: RC Pepsi manufactures food and beverages. [Source: dnb. com]

Sources:

Parent Linking

Scenario B

As part of his quarterly rotation, Joe started refresher training on parent linking and began analyzing several entities. He soon found that this task was quite different from his usual work. During the first few days, Joe identified the following cases.

Question:

In which error type would the following be categorized if:

RRID in WF: Epidas CLO XXXII LLC

Identified parent: CVT Debit Partners US CLO Management LLC

Maintenance

Scenario C

Joe then began his maintenance training, which involved dealing with complex cases and learning about various corporate events. While examining his previous analyses, he came across the following cases.

Question:

In which error type would the following be categorized if:

Given Entity: Mister Dunkin Corp

Former names in the registry:

Mister Dunkin Corp changed its name to Happy Haus Inc March 14, 2022

Happy Haus Doughnuts LLC changed its name to Mister Dunkin Corp on January 8, 2016

Krispy Doughnut LLC changed its name to Happy Haus Doughnuts LLC on January 5, 2014

Impressive!

Nailed every question!

For approvers who are not yet involved in Maintenance approvals

For approvers who are handling Maintenance approvals