Help make corrections to the follow email. Check for spelling (British), punctuation, and grammar. Ensure the overall message flow naturally, and choose the most appropriate words that enhance clarity and conciseness. Do not change the meaning or intent of the message. Thank you! Hi Felix, I hope you are a wonderful day. Surprisingly again it was sunny which helped with my performance, although you could probably guess. Today as you know from our previous conversations should have been the closure for the RDS DQ checks, but it hasn’t happened. That’s because another urgent request came in and AB mainly focused on that. About that task, early during the day, DS asked whether I was involved in preparing the data to send to the external provided. Although, I wasn’t involved I should have known better than I realised. As an interim lead, I should have probably taken more a keen interest in the broad project and if I did maybe my response would have been more helpful. Maybe I was, I don’t know for sure. What I do know is I was able to answer confidently about the coverage and why a more recent period was chosen as opposed to what would typical cover the calibration. But I volunteered to look for additional information which helped in making the decision in some ways. One more thing I learned from this aside from taking a broad interest in the project is to document any decision we make for ourselves and others. Now, I am not suggesting there wasn’t a document about the choice of the data period, but I couldn’t find one in the project folder. So, it’s more a note to myself than passing the buck. AB noticed there was a misleading information in the data dictionary about the entity name which appears in the data as full name. I asked that she records it in the log and notify the data team which she confirmed but I haven’t been able to check it myself. DS asked that I respond to the data team to ask about the update on how to identify branches. As I write this, that is yet to be completed maybe I will send a quick email after this. I have been trying to replicate the ICL analysis that was done on Funds. Although the code is working reasonably well, and I have output the waterfall, I have to review the code and check the numbers make sense. One thing I noticed, which I need to further investigate is the fact there are some entities in RDS that aren’t in ICL. Although only 31, I need to check and maybe if time permits, I might need to see if can extract more info and share with the data team. I have also reached to Jesus who is working on the Funds analysis to let him know that I might be in touch with questions when the needs arise. DS provided the following information as a possible explanation on why ICL and RDS don’t match. ICL contains entities that haven’t been graded these ones will not be included in scope, and another reason is that ICL would have multiple gradings sometimes in the same months or days whilst in RDS it’s one grading per cohort. Although writing this now makes me wonder whether the second explanation makes sense. Please let me know if it makes sense or not. Because I’ve yet to make a start on the report for the RDS acceptance, I’ll need to be fast on it given the deadline agreed is next Friday. For that reason, I intend to complete this ICL analysis early on Monday on move on to the task alongside ensuring everything as agreed with RL & AB have been followed through. That’s pretty much it for this week. Have a blessed weekend. Cheers. Berlinston