Flag Logic Needed to Identify Problems for Flag Resolutions #1406
Replies: 4 comments
-
|
I agree, this has been a challenge during troubleshooting and trying to decode the multiple LSA documents utilized - this would be tremendously helpful for next year's reporting period. Thank you for your time and consideration! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I sent this reply to our email thread but wanted to paste it here as well so anyone could benefit. We will continue to talk about what level of detail would be helpful for vendors trying to get information about flag logic. Identify Projects
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@LaurenBianchi I'm not sure if GitHub messaged you since you're not the creator of this issue so I wanted to highlight my reply here and we will continue to discuss. Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@eccovia-csmith here is a similar write up for flag 984
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Several CoCs we support have raised questions about flags comparing Inventory and LSACalculated Utilization rates. Specifically, we are examining Flag IDs 984, 989, and 999, which indicate that there are active beds specified in Inventory, but the Average Utilization rate is reported as 0.
As a vendor, we need a better understanding of how HDX 2.0 calculates these utilization rates based on the LSA Export data. The 'Full Flag List for Vendors' provides this logic:
fx_avg_util_all_all_es=0 & expected_reportstart=reportstart & expected_reportend=reportendwith additional flag variables:
fx_avg_ppl_all_all_es fx_avg_beds_tot_h_all_es fx_avg_util_all_all_esHowever, terms like 'fx_avg_util_all_all_es' are not defined, making it difficult for us to interpret or apply the logic. This lack of decipherable information prevents us from understanding which data is used to compute these numbers. To effectively troubleshoot and explain these flags, we need insight into how HDX calculates them, as the existing logic appears as a 'black box' to us.
Logic used to generate Flag IDs 984, 989, and 999 are needed in the immediate term to help us investigate the flags one of our communities is experiencing to help them with an explanation or resolution prior to the final submission of their LSA.
Request for Improvement:
We recommend increasing transparency regarding flag calculations to improve the efficiency of troubleshooting within the LSA and related data issues flagged by HDX 2.0. Without clear logic, it's unreasonable to expect vendors or communities to resolve or explain flags adequately and accurately.
As a vendor, we consistently aim to assist communities in addressing unexpected or incorrect flags. Often, these stem from simple data quality issues disconnected from the flag itself due to LSA process complexities. Occasionally, we identify logic discrepancies in our LSA data processing. However, comprehending how HDX identified an issue remains crucial.
Reverse-engineering HDX's conclusions is currently unreliable and inefficient. Future LSAs should provide clearer explanations for flags with complex logic. Access to the underlying logic behind 'fx_' prefixed functions/calculations would enable our engineering team to better understand and support the communities we serve.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions