DPM 3.0 - C80.00 - C84.00 - Inconsistent modelisation and validation rules v10127_m and v10143_m.

Modelisation issue between report C80.00 and C84.00 but only for the sheets giving a breakdown per currency as we have some inconsistent duplicated fact. See background on the question.

This issues is blocking for many fillers and should processed urgently. Indeed it seems that with the current XBRL modelisation, cell C8400w r0100 c0200 should be equal to cell C8400w r1020 c0130 for a given currency. This modelisation is not aligned with the modelisation done on the TOTAL sheet which states that cell C8400 r0100 c0200 should be equal to cell C8000 r0970 c0130   When we look at the ITS we see that the following equality are indicated : C8400 0100 1.9 RSF from other assets Item 1.9 of reporting templates C 80.00 and C 82.00   C8000 0970 1.9 RSF from other assets Institutions shall report here any asset not referred to in items 1.1 to 1.8.   When we look at the DPM we see that the modelisaiton issue seems to be linked to the value of the DIMENSION MC which differs on report C8400 between the TOTAL sheet and the sheet giving the breakdown per currency. C8400 - TOTAL SHEET RSF from other assets 0100 455484 €£$ 458806 €£$ €£$ % (BA:x27) Required stable funding (MC:x1069) Physically traded commodities, trade date receivables, non-performing assets and other assets   C8400 - BREAKDOWN PER CURRENCY SHEET RSF from other assets 0100 455210 €£$ 458670 €£$ €£$ % (BA:x27) Required stable funding (MC:x1052) Other RSF assets     From our point of view the dimension MC should have the value (MC:x1069) Physically traded commodities, trade date receivables, non-performing assets and other assets on the row 0100 of report C8400 – breakdown per currency   Furthermore, the taxonomy states : a)From a modellisation point of view it seems that the cell C8400w r0010 C0020 == C08000w r0010 c0130.           b)That the amount to be reported in column 0020 of report C8400 should be equal to the sum of the sub ITEM of C8400 v10158_m 3.0.0 Add Manual Warning C 84.00.w (0010;0020) (All) {C 84.00.w, r0010} = {C 84.00.w, r0020} + {C 84.00.w, r0030} + {C 84.00.w, r0040} + {C 84.00.w, r0050} + {C 84.00.w, r0060} + {C 84.00.w, r0070} + {C 84.00.w, r0090} + {C 84.00.w, r0100} + {C 84.00.w, r0110}     c) That the amount to be reported in column 0130 row 0010 is calculated via a sum of various sub items, of which the row r0970 which is calculated as a sum of various sub items of which the row r1020   v10117_m 3.0.0 Add Manual Warning C 80.00.w (0010;0020;0030;0040;0130) (All) {r0010} = {r0020} + {r0080} + {r0560} + {r0620} + {r0850} + {r0910} + {r0960} + {r0970} + {r1040} C 80.00.w treat as zero/empty string Interval     v10127_m 3.0.0 Add Manual Warning C 80.00.w (0010;0020;0030;0040;0130) (All) {r0970} = {r0980} + {r1010} + {r1020} + {r1030}   Considering the point a,b and c we do not see a way for our client to report a valid XBRL instance that will satisfy all the validation rules. Indeed in order to pass the modelisation constraint we should report : A false amount in C8400w r0100 c0020 equal to the amount in C8000w r1020 C0130 A correct amount in C8400w r0010 c0020 equal to the amount in C8000w r0010 C0130, which won’t satisfy the validation rule v10158_m   Please can you tell us if you will publish a corrective version of the report C8400, or if we need to tell our client to declare some false amount in C8400 R0100 C0020 and to not take into consideration the validation rule v10158_m