Correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Do not change meaning or intent. 

Hi Mr Louis,
That of the week has come again. I trust you had a wonderful week and looking forward to the weekend? Anything you care to share about your week? I am a good listener you know!
Mine was as exciting as a day without a rain! Anyway, I have come to download my main highlights of the week hoping you aren’t already bored of me. As customary for the last 2 weeks, I will go day by day.
Monday
I asked DS to provide me with the email to ask for sector mapping. I received the response from the colleague at 14:08 I have moved the in the project folder. I thought it would be good to check what I might do for the distribution of qualitative variables, and also check the challengers shared by DS in the teams channel. 
At the daily stand up, DS suggested we pause to the representativeness for now as there are more pressing tasks to complete. So, I thought I would tidy the code and perhaps test it in studio. I haven’t tried it ye in studio, but my guess is, it should be fine. DS suggested I schedule a meeting to discuss project planning and that I share the mapping with XW. I did both. 
Later I had a call with DS to discuss the RDS DQ. It was question that I confirm the definition of the dimensions requested were made clear to the DS. I think looking at the MIRS, it was. DS said we should look at 2.9 DQ Acceptance from the LC and that everything prior to the DQ test should be validated as yes. He also asked that I confirm whether the test on the LC draft version was final or not. 
Tuesday
After checking the DQ section of the draft MIRS, I am confident some of test I discussed with DS on Monday were included maybe not to the same extend as in the LC document. I spoke to PC over teams, and she suggested the DQ test in the draft LC RDS approval report could be amended although it wasn’t definitive. 
During the stand up meeting, I was tasked with identifying related variable and what they should have in common (i.e. rule of some sorts). RL and AB might be able to help in checking the commonality identified are indeed visibly present. DS suggested I start from the priority list and then look into the proposed list I shared. One group could be country of residence. I made note for myself to check the MIRS to ensure I knew exactly what the test or wording of it. It says -  Compare values in related columns to values in a mapped relationship or business rule
In the data standup they asked why we only included null default in the priority list. I wasn’t sure to be honest so I said, I couldn’t remember. We needed to check with the LC which variant of the default they did DQ on. Later in the day DS asked if I could take the action of getting the names of the variables that enter the scorecard.

Wednesday
I didn’t get to share anything on Aiden this week as well. The team meeting had two guests: Joel and Josianna. Joel said IRB is in high demand. He needs to explain to the board what we do for IRB model. This is because the regulators expect the board to know it but of course a water down version so they have an idea and comfortable with it. He said 2025 would be very demanding because of the deadlines although the focus will be primarily on the wholesale. It emphasised that it will be hard but rewarding nevertheless. He reminded us to keep an eye on the end goal i.e. what is more important in the grand scheme of things when prioritising what to work on. RZ mentioned how perhaps we spend more time on our data work compare to others in the industry. But we need to remain rigorous although that might send the wrong signal to the regulator as if there’s something wrong with the data. So I guess, it’s a balancing act between robustness and meeting the expectation.
Josiana showed efficient way to use Spark on AWS without causing any overspending. 
I wondered what variables I need to share. Whether I needed only version 2 or both, focus on recent rebuilt or retrospective. In the test harness, was it the input only or both input and output. RX also shared an email at 10:48 with the SAS code used as part of the impact assessment. I had a chat with him on that and the conclusion was to check the code in ’01 parent’ especially line 90 – 120, 158 – 173, and 208 – 29. Perhaps using this to complement those from the test harness.

Thursday
DS shared at 09:07 a template for the ICL override review. JS and I are to familiarise ourselves with it and see if there any required information we couldn’t get hold of. I can confirm JS has already made a head start on it. I should probably make time to look at it as well just in case there’s something more we would need where preparation would be essential. I wasn’t quite sure what the data team needed when they asked for the variables that entered the model. I shared an initial list with DS which was a combination of the impact assessment and the test harness. He raised the question on why different versions of the same variables were provided. I revised the list by focusing only on the variables I saw used in the impact assessment PD calculation. Although the variables were at dd level rather raw inputs. DS has not gotten back to me, so I don’t know if it was what he expected or not. Do you think that perhaps I should have asked for clarity? Other than, I also added default to the list of related variables. I only thought about it when DS used it as an example when we were discussing the RDS DQ requirements with the data team.
Friday
I started the day with a call on the project plan with the PM. DS was not available so I shared the invite with XS just in case there was something I could not answer. Thankfully, she was available and joined. The data team ask if we could provide support in segmentation as more decisions are needed to work with the priority list. Wita wasn’t overly optimistic about using things like cascade rule alone.  In our own standup, JS said he would complete the template for ICL review and share with me for my feedback. This hasn’t been done so I’m guessing that would be for Monday at the earliest. Later in the afternoon, I noticed DS put a deadline for the related variables. Apart from the basic grouping I have done I am not sure if there is more expectations. I supposed I could have reached to find out about it but let see on Monday. In the meantime, I also went through the model document to see if there are other sensible way to identify those groups. I chatted with RX and he said for LC they consider model factor, scoping and exclusion rules. Perhaps that is the same approach we should take, not sure!

That is it for me. I keep saying I will make it more concise, but it has yet happened. I guess it means I love to fill you in or maybe I just have more done. Who knows. At any rate, do have a wonderful week and expect to hear from me again soon.
Cheers
Fergusson