Investigate users properties, for compatibility with LH services

[oddball-lindsay]

Background

Lighthouse requires a Participant ID for requesting and auto-establishing a POA. And an EDIPI is required for creating a Participant ID, in cases where the user is missing one.

• If a user is missing PID then we may be able to create one for them using EDIPI.
• If a user is missing EDIPI, then we may be able to create one for them using SSN.
• If a user is missing SSN, we will not be able to create one for them and also cannot create an EDIPI/PID. These users should not see digital submission as an option.

Lighthouse also only supports non-Veteran claimants that are marked as "dependent" in VBMS. Any other non-dependent, non-Veteran claimants are out of scope for digital submission.

This ticket is to understand how large these groups are, to understand the impact and if the work to create PID/EDIPI is worth the additional scope for Lighthouse. And then to understand if we can hide digital submission from users who will not be able to use digital submission successfully.

Tasks

• [ ] Understand what % of users have a Participant ID, EDIPI and are marked as "dependent"
• [ ] Confirm that we can see these properties (PID, EDIPI, dependent) in vets-api and tailor the experience based on compatibility with Lighthouse.

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] We have confidence that only users who are compatible with LH's request and establish POA services will see the digital submission experience.

[oddball-lindsay]

For the Participant ID, submitted a Service Request in the Information Technology Request Portal as recommended by Damian DeAntonio. My request confirmation is CMDMRP-8161. If I have questions, I can reach out to Dave Hazelbaker (IAM Governance Manager) by emailing IAMServiceRequest2@va.gov.

Also submitted a request to Identity regarding EDIPI and dependent-status: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team-sensitive/issues/1759

[oddball-lindsay]

My original service request was closed and I was redirected to submit a specific MPI request -- new confirmation is CMDMRP-8167. Asked about PID, EDIPI and dependent status, just in case Identity is unable to assist.

[oddball-lindsay]

From Identity, regarding my EDIPI and dependent status requests:

LOA1 users dont have any verifiable data so they wont have an EDIPI or marked as dependent in VBMS. For the LOA3 users you would need to reach out to IAM (Damien) for the edipi percentage and then a contact from VBMS for the marked as dependent.

I'll check with Damien tomorrow to see if the EDIPI data is also an SR request with MPI. For VBMS, I might try Mary Kate Albers.

[oddball-lindsay]

Damien said that yes it's the same process for EDIPI as it is for PID, so I'm covered in my original request to MPI.

He also said EDIPI shouldn't be required to create a ParticipantID:

that doesn't make sense. EDIPI is DoD's unique ID so it shouldnt have anything to do with creating participant ID which is a unique ID assigned by VBA

I'm still curious to try and capture the % of users, and once I know that I'll share the % as well as Damien's thoughts with LH.

Also sent a message to Mary Kate about what % of LOA3 users are marked as "dependent" OR "Veteran" in VBMS. The remianing % will be the users we cannot assist with digital submission through LH services.

[oddball-lindsay]

Mary Kate provided some names from the Corporate database team, for my inquiry about "dependent" or "Veteran" designations -- Corporate is what owns the designation in VBMS.

I also had asked Michael Harlow and he shared that

Today there were 129 dependents who logged in out of 58,129 active users. Which is 0.2% of users.

Discussing with Holden though, this investigation is for a very future state and we don't need this information anytime soon. Thinking I'll stop pursuing answers actively for now and focus on other priorities.