Taxonomy 3.2: Are the validation rules v6327_m and v6332_m consistent?

In Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2021/451, chapter 6.1.2 referring to template C 32.01, the row of the line 0120 “shall correspond to row 0250 of template F 01.01 of Annexes III and IV to this Implementing Regulation”. By this way, the 0120 FAIR VALUE CHANGES OF THE HEDGED ITEMS IN PORTFOLIO HEDGE OF INTEREST RATE RISK may contain negative values. Refer the annex XV of the same implementing regulation, the corresponding validation rules are defined in the taxonomy 3.2 like this: v6327_m: {c0020} <= {c0010} ; Severity: Error v6332_m: {c0090} <= {c0080} ; Severity: Warning However, when the cell C32.01_A0120_0010 is negative, it will be necessary lower than the cell C32.01_A0120_0020 (OF WHICH: TRADING BOOK) and the control v6327_m is wrongly activated. We have the same analysis between the C32.01_A0120_0080 and C32.01_A0120_0090 for the control v6332_m Should these validation rule should be treated in absolute value to be consistent?

As an illustration in the report C32.01, we have the case negative and positive:     FAIR-VALUED ASSETS AND LIABILITIES           OF WHICH: TRADING BOOK     0010 0020 v6327_m Colonne 0010 >= 0020 Case 1 0120 1.1.10 FAIR VALUE CHANGES OF THE HEDGED ITEMS IN PORTFOLIO HEDGE OF INTEREST RATE RISK -126 167 -700 FALSE Case 2 0120 1.1.10 FAIR VALUE CHANGES OF THE HEDGED ITEMS IN PORTFOLIO HEDGE OF INTEREST RATE RISK 1 234 123 TRUE