SBP: Missmatch between predefined values of dimension (ei385) and expected values from EBA

The instructions on column 050 of template C 106.00 of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 (ITS on Supervisory Benchmarking) envisage the following rationales for the exclusion of portfolios from the benchmarking exercise: (a) Model not authorised by Regulator; (b) Instrument or underlying not authorised internally; (c) Underlying or modelling feature not contemplated internally. Those rationales are relevant for the benchmarking exercise. However, as stated in the background to the question, both the DPM and the EBA XBRL taxonomy envisage the following values: Model not authorised by regulator Model not authorised internally Other rationale for exclusion Both the DPM and the XBRL taxonomy will be aligned with the instructions provided in Annex VI to the ITS on Supervisory Benchmarking in the future. In those cases where the EBA XBRL taxonomy is used to submit data, and as long as the DPM and the XBRL taxonomy have not been amended, the rationale for exclusion shall be reported as follows: Rationale according to Annex VI → Reported value in EBA XBRL taxonomy Model not authorised by Regulator → 1) Model not authorised by regulator Instrument or underlying not authorised internally → 2) Model not authorised internally Underlying or modelling feature not contemplated internally → 3) Other rationale for exclusion