VF - Settlement - MVP Review

[eliraklosi]

Contract Id = 05b3e29f21955b2489c50aa6dd3657e85e09510014226e1e0224a4a3e891111e

No issues creating the contract and uploading long usage list, however following noticed, in order of Priority:

• [x] Total Voice Usage field in "General Info" tab of Home and Partner Settlement Discrepancy View is not the sum of Voice Services, which are however correct on Details Tab. Example: Total sum in Discrepancy View Actual Voice breakdown in Details View

• [x] MTC, which was linear rate = 0 in json and not included in commitment, is an empty line in Contracts Details tab.

• [ ] MTC is also not part of calculations, however not sure whether we decided it should be, regardless of commitment inclusions. I would think overall it would be good to calculate charges for services when rates are available, whether they are included in commitment or not, since it would give complete info to the user.

• Now that I can experience it with Data, the Settlement Report View is very confusing:

• [ ] % calculations: Partner Charges % (my Inbound) is calculated as Partner's Number over My Own Number (my own charges is the denominator), however the Home Charges % (my Outbound) is calculated as My own Number over Partner's Number (Partner's Charges are the denominator). In order to avoid mental acrobatics, discrepancies should be expressed consistently, ex. I should view both discrepancies in relation to my own numbers (my charges are the denominator).

• [ ] In same line of thought - Home Revenues box is using My Own View of Inbound charges, but Partner Revenues box is using the Partner's View of my Outbound charges. If I am taking my own view as the correct source of Settlement calculations than both boxes should take into account My Own View of my Inbound/Outbound. Same logic goes for Partner View boxes.

• [ ] In my opinion we should rename things more appropriately as Own view vs Partner View and Inbound / Outbound (this is a discussion for UI meeting).

[ldudzinski01]

When it comes to "Total Voice Usage field in "General Info" tab of Home and Partner Settlement Discrepancy View is not the sum of Voice Services, which are however correct on Details Tab."

It is related to the condition: if the settlements contain zero calculations for a given sub-service e.g. MTC then such calculations are skipped which means they are not included in the details view.

However, I understand that this could be confusing so of course we can change it. But the question is if it is possible from the business/calculation point of view i.e. to have non-zero usages but all zeros calculations.

[eliraklosi]

Hi,

Please take MTC out of any sum calculations of MOC Voice, including usage. These are 2 completely different services. Yes, they are both measured in duration (minutes), but they should not be summed up together, just like we don't sum up Voice usage with SMS usage.

thanks, Elira

When it comes to "Total Voice Usage field in "General Info" tab of Home and Partner Settlement Discrepancy View is not the sum of Voice Services, which are however correct on Details Tab."

It is related to the condition: if the settlements contain zero calculations for a given sub-service e.g. MTC then such calculations are skipped which means they are not included in the details view.

However, I understand that this could be confusing so of course we can change it.

[ldudzinski01]

Thanks Elira for explanation.

[eliraklosi]

On the other question "But the question is if it is possible from the business/calculation point of view i.e. to have non-zero usages but all zeros calculations."

Yes, can happen sometimes, there can be a service or sub-service that's been agreed to not be charged so you have usage but the rate is 0.

[ldudzinski01]

Thanks for additional info, and what you proposed is perfectly consistent with the usage discrepancy view in which we have MOC and MTC distinguished but in the settlement discrepancy view we have just Voice for all "min" traffic.

To sum up:

1) For the given service: If usages are non-zeros but calculations are zeros still we should include such service in sett. discrepancy details view.

2) MTC usages should not be summed up together with MOC usages.

3) We can decide to have MOC and MTC distinguished in the settlement discrepancy general info view.

[eliraklosi]

Hi,

Here's the comments, I would say it's good to raise point 1 also in today's call to hear other's opinion:

1. For the given service: If usages are non-zeros but calculations are zeros still we should include such service in sett. discrepancy details view. EK: Yes, should be included
2. MTC usages should not be summed up together with MOC usages. EK: Yes
3. We can decide to have MOC and MTC distinguished in the settlement discrepancy general info view. EK: Should definitely be distinguished otherwise end-user can't tell what was the MOC usage, which is crucial for most contracts.