TXSET149 raised issues that were scheduled for revision in 2020.
The speaker acknowledged being responsible for some initial aggressive recommendations.
Desired outcome was to revise the current CSA validation process and request Texas SET review, but a suggestion would be for MVO process to be separated from CSA CR switch
Suggestion to rework language to suggest that CSA process improvements with Texas SET 5.0 makes original recommendations unnecessary.
Agreement that while the original requested resolution was not implemented, a satisfactory solution was achieved.
Acknowledgement to mark the issue as addressed and resolved.
There was a discussion about ensuring mandatory data elements are explicit and present in the EDI.
The optional data fields not being tested in scripts was highlighted; they need to be tested to ensure correct interpretation by receivers.
Testing all optional data in a test environment is crucial to prevent failures in production.
Specific mention of problems with the power outage data element and similar issues in production.
Discussion emphasized that supposedly optional fields like IA and CR, as well as REF-MSL, should be required in testing to prevent inconsistencies.
Debate on whether all scripts should have the same success criteria or if focus should be on the IBANK script.
Understanding was that IBANK will be the forward-going script for new entrants and could be modified as necessary.
Testing for all data elements within PER-PO, including phone number and email, was deemed necessary to identify potential issues.
Suggestions were made to add notes in scripts for clarity, stating that all elements are required for testing but optional in production.
Future modifications to FlighTrak were discussed and an understanding was reached to aim for implementation in the June flight.
There was a consensus to modify the IBANK script and extend the changes to applicable sections for consistent testing, noting that this will not apply to the current flight cycle.
Some discussion on startups and the usage of IAs and CRs as they are expected to function smoothly.
Kathryn Thurman’s initiative as Market Coordination Team (MCT) lead was recognized for her leadership, and the MCT has been sunsetted.
SET is responsible for addressing production problems. Matters that are not urgent will be part of ongoing discussions for future enhancements.
Rob Bevill raised a question about the archival of documents from the MCT page; it was clarified that documents will remain in place, but the MCT is now inactive.
The group discussed ways to simplify access to documents for new members by reducing navigation steps.
Kathy had an information-related query but not a production issue. She later provided guidance on accessing the Texas SET and updating the change control log as it was incomplete.
Shannon Carter mentioned that any production issues have been resolved with the respective market partners, and global issues would likely have been identified by now.
Discussion on production issues wrapped up with no further urgent matters identified.
Discussion on FlighTrak needed to be covered, focusing on two separate conversations: general FlighTrak and FlighTrak guide for auto flight testing.
Carrie Bivens requested additional discussion on documenting and defining out-of-flight testing scenarios, highlighting the lack of detailed existing documentation.
The TMTP was mentioned, with suggestions to include more requirements from TDSPs and ERCOT in the documentation.
Potential revisiting of requirements needed for bank changes and various scenarios, such as service providers exiting the market, was discussed.
