correct for spelling, punctuation and grammar. use british english. Hi Louise,
Another busy working week is coming to an end. I trust that yours went well. Mine went so fast I can hardly remember anything. Thankfully, I made a habit of noting things down so can easily write up the summary and share with you. Can’t say I will do justice to everything but it’s better than having nothing to write about. Without delay here it’s.
Monday
My goal was to figure out how to start leveraging Aiden to enhance my productivity. I was pleasantly surprised it could take pdf although I am not sure how big it should be before falling apart. To test, I converted a small csv dataset and uploaded it to infer names that weren’t visible. First, I got Aiden to convert the data to a pandas data frame, and it was able to answer questions about central tendency. It was also able to suggest some analysis when requested although it did go beyond the data but maybe that’s down to my failure of crafting an effective prompt. I spoke AB & RL on the progress regarding the related variables checks. I had in plan but didn’t do it to update my goals. I spent some time to understand the template and analysis JS had shared with us last Friday. Later I was due to check the DET query log but didn’t come around doing it.  

Tuesday
In the morning, we decided we would look at the ICL response from the MUG and proposed where each entity stands where there were blank responses. M McGurn asked we sent the template even though not fully populated and the responses from the MUG to see things like cascade they proposed. The aim was to share the entire categorisation to the data team this week or latest on Monday. 
In the stand-up, it was agreed we would do the PSI ourselves at MDS level. No decision is yet made about the cohort although it will probably be January as in the past. No agreement about the application sample as well, but we’ll need to confirm with the MUG. DS said he was going to chat with the Fund team on related variables and would provide feedback on any additional check to do. We would need to finalise the DQ requirements and let the DET know. I was assigned the responsibility of doing that by the end of the week using LC as benchmark. Noting that there might be additional checks we would need to do ourselves. 
I had a separate call with DS do discuss about ICL. We agreed that CRADLE batch would be removed. Investigate cascades as proposed by the MUG. For this we want to know why, when was it applicable, and figure out if they were always cascade. We would need to make a rule for those undecided then get the MUG to sign off. DS would first have a go at defining those rules when he would come back to me to help finalise it (with the support of RL & AB). 
One thing I learned on LinkedIn on how to simplify writing by refraiming from overusing the following: that, thinking and words ending in ‘ing’.

 
Wednesday
Getting the feedback from DS about the related variable from Funds. He didn’t have it yet but was going to share as soon as possible. Connected with RL & AB to get the update on the checks they were doing. I was planning and I did check with DS if he needed support on categorisations of ICL as discussed previously. 
To put the requirements together I reached out to Rishay and I received an email from him at 09:55 with a copy of the LC MIRS attached. I once more looked at the LC RDS Acceptance and put together a draft for our project.
I checked the DQ log as requested by Angelique and found two queries attached to my name which I didn’t see the day before. Probably I wasn’t looking for it properly last time. I thought I might reach out to Evan and see if Aiden could be of any help to improve the LGD model. Essentially, I needed to know what he was aiming for and whether any model was off limits. He shared the code in Teams. 
During the stand up, AB & RL confirmed they had completed the checks. I need to set up a meeting to discuss the outcome with DS but please remind me to review it first, so I don’t let anyone down. DS said Funds had a couple of suggestions for the checks, but he needed to tidy that before sharing.
In the call with the data team, it became clear there was additional check to be done about the data. Check consistency on the null default current status. For the ones we couldn’t go directly to the source, how would we handle them. We need to work out a sample, check and apply the rule to the rest. 
I had another call with DS to discuss the DQ requirements. He suggested he would look through and come back to me. Funds made suggestions about cascade. DS wanted me to investigate zero ead flag on Thursday and figure out what is the most appropriate field to use. 


Thursday 
My main objective for the day was to check into the zero ead flag and consistency. Review the data quality check from the DET. Find out from DS the additional test for related variable and read through the analysis and summarise. Speak to DS to know if he needed help on the ICL categorisation and DQ requirements.
Later we had a meeting with DS and XW. It was agreed that we should make note during the MUG to ensure we capture the actions which would help in drafting the email to them. In ICL template where the type is change to bank change everything else but when sub-type is financials or we don’t know, should we remove them? Get AB/RL to rerun the MRS and to do DQ after but based on the initial list of 300c variables I suggested. We need to remember to make check or even add them to the priority list (airb_guarantor_entity + airb_credit_obl_entity). Do further analysis and compared the various ead fields. Find out what LC is using over what period. 

Friday
Spent some time looking at the related variable checks but didn’t summarise it. AB successfully rerun the MDS so it’s now ready for the DQ. I reached out to RX and he confirmed LC and Banks are using the same flag for EAD. Zero ead flag is blank pre 2012 because the data come from FRANK which was not in place before then. He shared a document (email 16:32) I could read to find out about various ead fields.  I asked RL/AB to look at the DET checks to complement the comments from Angelique.  Note from the MUG: manual grading, share with them to confirm. Not live, DS to share proposed classification with evidence he gathered. PRA decision is for full rebuild – no change in timeline. We need to source external data. Sunil to share information/logic for SNL mapping to internal data.


As you can appreciate from the above it’s been a week full of activities. Slow progress but progress, nonetheless. Next week, XW is on leave, but the good news is JS is back so there’s more support to push things through. It means more will be expected of me. I’m glad as it will give me opportunities to learn. 

Thanks
John