Re: [lmi] Question about "Numeric summary" logic

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:59:16 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> ...so let's just follow the regulation:
GC>   http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_lhatf_582.pdf
GC> which says, in relevant part (C)(1):
GC> 
GC> | This summary shall be shown for at least policy years five (5),
GC> | ten (10) and twenty (20) and at age 70, if applicable ...

 Thanks, this is much more clear. But I can't help noticing that it says
"at least" and the current code seems to quite intentionally show it for
the year 30 too (if not lapsed, of course). Should we keep 30 or not?

GC> Here, "if applicable" means if the row-index year in {5,10,20,age_70}
GC> above precedes the 'lapse year' [0] for the given output column, i.e.:
GC>   scalars/LapseYear_Guaranteed
GC>   scalars/LapseYear_Midpoint
GC>   scalars/LapseYear_Current

 I'm not sure if understanding this is really going to help me here, but I
have to admit that I have only a very vague idea of what do the
"guaranteed", "midpoint" and "current" suffixes mean (without speaking of
their "full", "zero" and "half" variants). If it's not too much trouble,
could you please explain it?

GC> [There is a further requirement in (C)(2), which the XSL code
GC> addresses by showing an extra row with values as of the highest
GC> lapse year: apparently it appends 'LapseYear_Current' to the set
GC> {5,10,20,age_70} and just prints out a row of values indexed
GC> accordingly. Before you spend too much time replicating that
GC> particular row, let me consult with some experts--I think it may
GC> be preferable to replace that extra row with one that just prints
GC> the value of each 'LapseYear_*' instead of using any of them
GC> as an index. I won't be able to have that discussion before
GC> Monday at the earliest.]

 OK, I'll wait for this clarification, I can work on the "Tabular detail"
page(s) in the meanwhile, they're more challenging anyhow (because of page
breaks).

 Thanks in advance,
VZ