# Presentation: 696141

## MTAC

- _Workgroup 100_
- Seamless Acceptance for MLOCR Environment

_***Co-chairs***_
***Industry – Jay Gillotte***
***USPS – Pritha Mehra***

## Issue Title
Identify gaps & define capabilities for seamless acceptance for MLOCR
Issue Statement
Define capabilities of seamless acceptance for MLOCR for First Class Mail.
Desired Results
Identify gaps that inhibit electronic statements and documentation. 
Evaluate Web Services and Mail.dat technologies
Define capabilities of seamless acceptance.  
Identify gaps in feedback of verification information to the mailer.

- Identify gaps & define capabilities for seamless acceptance for MLOCR
**Issue Statement**
- Define capabilities of seamless acceptance for MLOCR for First Class Mail.
**Desired Results**
- Identify gaps that inhibit electronic statements and documentation.
- Evaluate Web Services and Mail.dat technologies
- Define capabilities of seamless acceptance.
- Identify gaps in feedback of verification information to the mailer.

- Workgroup Objectives

## Pilot analysis for MLOCR mailers since Sept. 06
Prudential (IMB):  126 FCM jobs, 5,247,594 pieces
PSI (IMB):  87 FCM jobs, 869,363 pieces
ZipSort (Unique IMB): 41 FCM jobs, 52,562 pieces

Using piece scan data to verify:
Mailpiece Count
Barcode Quality
Presort Errors
Minimum Piece Count per ZIP Group
Address Validity
Address Hygeine

- Prudential (IMB):  126 FCM jobs, 5,247,594 pieces
- PSI (IMB):  87 FCM jobs, 869,363 pieces
- ZipSort (Unique IMB): 41 FCM jobs, 52,562 pieces
**Using piece scan data to verify:**
- Mailpiece Count
- Barcode Quality
- Presort Errors
- Minimum Piece Count per ZIP Group
- Address Validity
- Address Hygeine

- Seamless Acceptance Pilot

**Notes:**
Average size of Prudential mailings: 35,000 (multiple customers)
Average size of PSI: 45,000 (one customer)
Average size of ZIPSort: 15,000 (one customer)

## 
Electronic Documentation Quality
Piece counts differences between Tray and Piece Files close to 0%  
Piece to Tray associations are nearing 100%
Mailpiece Counts
Increases in scan rate allow accurate determination of the number of manifested pieces
Barcode Quality
High barcode quality results in 98% average scan rate
Presort Errors
Errors caught by MERLIN are also found by SAVP
Address Validity
Average 1.5% invalid POSTNET  
Address Hygiene
COA and Returned Mail percentages can be evaluated

**Electronic Documentation Quality**
- Piece counts differences between Tray and Piece Files close to 0%
- Piece to Tray associations are nearing 100%
**Mailpiece Counts**
- Increases in scan rate allow accurate determination of the number of manifested pieces
**Barcode Quality**
- High barcode quality results in 98% average scan rate
**Presort Errors**
- Errors caught by MERLIN are also found by SAVP
**Address Validity**
- Average 1.5% invalid POSTNET
**Address Hygiene**
- COA and Returned Mail percentages can be evaluated

**Seamless Acceptance is Feasible**

- Pilot Findings

## Pilot Enhancements

**Mailers submitting Mail.dat files **
**Receiving automated feed of address change information **
**Applying 10/24 Intelligent Tray barcode at one facility**
**Have initiated tray scan analysis**** **

**Notes:**
PSI and ZIPSort are using the PDR file. 
Prudential sends a separate output from their MLOCRs. 
ACS Data 

TMS weights tray and sends to us. 
Physical Tray Count – from TMS
Average Tray Weight – Sum of Tray Weight Captured/ Number of Trays
Comparing Average Tray Weights to actual tray weights. 

## Postage Assessment - Principles

**All mail and corresponding manifests within a 24 hour period  treated as a single mailing **
**Adjustments calculated for each mailing but postage assessed on a monthly basis**
**Adjudication Period**
**Each facility treated as a separate mailing entity**
**Mailers can review status of each mailing as data is received**
**Statistical sampling used to establish tolerances for each assessment category**
**Adjustments can be limited to specific mail within a mailing (i.e. by machine, by mail owner)**

- Draft

## Next Steps

**Finalize feedback approach**
**Pilot postage assessment approach**
**Determine appropriate tolerances for each verification element**
**Expand pilot to other classes of mail**

## Questions?