[directive] Throughout this Section, in other words, the term “automated pretrial risk assessment” generally refers to the automated assessment results that are provided to police and prosecutors before the case is reviewed by the pretrial services program.  Cf. note 3 (noting that if the pretrial risk assessment reviewed and approved by the pretrial services program is different from the computer-generated preliminary pretrial risk assessment initiated by police/prosecutors at the time of initial charging, the updated pretrial risk assessment, when available, should be used to inform the decision to seek pretrial detention or revocation of release pursuant to Section 7 and 8 of this Directive).  The automated pretrial risk-assessment process accounts for the general nature of the present offense (e.g., whether it involves violence) and certain electronically-stored criminal case and court history data that documents the defendant’s previous involvement, if any, in the adult criminal justice system.  This automated process produces a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) that provides three pretrial risk indicators: a six-point “failure-to-appear” (FTA) scale, a six- point “new criminal activity” (NCA) scale, and a “new violent criminal activity” (NVCA) “flag. ”9  The [...]’s pretrial services program will monitor released defendants to address the committed while on release for another offense) often will overlap with the risk indicators used in the automated pretrial risk-assessment process (e.g., defendant has a pending charge).  See also note 9 and accompanying text.  9  Risk levels that trigger action under the decision-making framework of this Directive are characterized as “elevated” (FTA or NCA value of 3 or higher), “moderate” (FTA or NCA value of 4 or higher), and “high” (FTA or NCA value of 5 or higher).  As part of the [...]’s “Decision-Making Framework,” the two six-point scales are used to generate a grid known as the “Pretrial Decision Making Matrix,” where the FTA value is shown on the vertical axis of the matrix and the NCA value is presented on the horizontal axis.  The intersection of the two scores creates a cell that indicates the level and type of release conditions and intervention/monitoring services that the pretrial services program will recommend to the court.  Although the matrix approach is helpful to the pretrial services program in determining the type and level of release conditions and monitoring services it will recommend to the court to manage the risks identified through the PSA, for purposes of the law enforcement decision whether to issue a complaint-summons or instead apply for a complaint-warrant, it is not necessary to juxtapose the FTA and NCA point values in a matrix grid.  Rather, under this Directive, either an elevated high FTA value or an elevated high NCA value may be sufficient to trigger a presumption that police will apply for a complaint-warrant, which then would provide the pretrial services program an opportunity to recommend appropriate conditions of release.  In other words, if the FTA score is low but the NCA score is elevated, moderate, or high (depending on the degree of the offense), a complaint-warrant should be sought.  See, e.g., subsection 4.5.1.  See also subsections 7.4.2.a, 7.4.2b, and 7.4.3 (presumptions guiding a prosecutor’s discretion to seek pretrial detention that are triggered by either a high FTA or NCA score, or a moderate or high NCA score regardless of the FTA score).  It also bears noting that under this Directive, a NVCA Page 28 measures risks identified through the PSA.  Thus, while the PSA risks, the [...]’s “Decision manage Making Framework” is designed to the identified risks by recommending the appropriate level of release conditions and monitoring.  Law Enforcement Obligation to Consider Known Relevant Information