Georgina Tarres CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination #4042

regnosys-prod-user · 2025-09-20T00:26:35Z

No description provided.

regnosys-prod-user · 2025-09-20T00:26:36Z

CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination

Background

The current qualification logic for Termination and Partial Termination events imposes conditions on all tradeLot quantities. This is incorrect because, for certain products (e.g. bond options), some tradeLot values represent trade features that are not expected to be impacted by the event. Therefore, they should not be considered in the qualification logic, as they can lead to misqualifying the event. Event qualification should instead be based only on the values impacted by the event, regardless of other unaffected quantities.

This release updates the logic for qualifying partial terminations and full terminations by applying constraints only to relevant quantities.

What is being released?

This release updates the following functions:

Partial Termination qualification

QuantityDecreased: updated to check that changed quantities have not decreased to zero, instead of checking that all quantities in the resulting tradeLot are greater than zero. This check is done through the function QuantityDecreasedToZero.
CompareTradeLot: updated to succeed if at least one quantity meets the condition.

Termination qualification

QuantityDecreasedToZero: updated to take the instruction as input and extract the unitTypes from the quantityChange instructions. The constaint now is applied only to quantities with the same unit type — assuming those are the ones affected by the event.
CompareTradeStatesToAmount: updated to allow unitType to be specified as input. If unit types are specified, only quantities with those units are compared. Otherwise, the comparison applies to all quantities.
CompareTradeLotToAmount: updated to allow unitType to be specified as input. If unit types are specified, only quantities with those units are compared. Otherwise, the comparison applies to all quantities.

Termination construction

Create_QuantityChange: updated to set positionState to Closed if all quantities with the instruction’s unit have decreased to zero.

Additional updates

Minor technical adjustments were made to the following functions to accommodate the above changes, without any impact on the business logic:
Qualify_FullReturn, Qualify_PartialNovation, Qualify_PartialTermination, Qualify_Reallocation, Qualify_Repurchase, Qualify_Renegotiation, Qualify_Termination.

Review Directions

Changes can be reviewed in PR: #4042

Note

This comment was generated via Rosetta.

netlify · 2025-09-20T00:26:40Z

✅ Deploy Preview for finos-cdm ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`9ae7102`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/finos-cdm/deploys/68e7d6d92704400008eee396
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4042--finos-cdm.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

…sses/ir-option-debt-option-ex01-term-cdm.xml Removing file uploaded by mistake.

…10-processes.json Removing file uploaded by mistake.

gtarres · 2025-09-22T10:33:15Z

This PR solves issues #3987 and #3798.

CDM-ReleaseManagement-OT · 2025-10-07T15:14:52Z

@JayasriR can you please investigate why the build is failing and create a separate release PR?

chrisisla

I've still got a couple of changes to review so will add some further comments when I am able to pick this up again (which should be this week) 👍

Main thing I need to think about is whether there is anything that might prevent the QuantityDecreased functions from taking an instruction as input rather than a tradeState.

rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/event-common-func.rosetta

chrisisla · 2025-10-08T13:04:59Z

rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/event-common-func.rosetta

 func QuantityDecreasedToZero:
    inputs:
-        before TradeState (0..*)
+        instruction Instruction (0..*)


Same question of cardinality as QuantityDecreased function. Interesting that originally tradeState was (0..*) here but (1..1) for QuantityDecreased.

rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/event-common-func.rosetta

chrisisla · 2025-10-08T13:18:45Z

rosetta-source/src/main/rosetta/event-common-func.rosetta

-    set quantityChange -> state -> positionState:
-        if newTradeLots -> priceQuantity -> quantity -> value all = 0
-        then PositionStatusEnum -> Closed
+    set quantityChange -> state -> positionState: <"Set positionState to Closed if all quantities with the instruction’s unit have decreased to zero.">


Not convinced this is correct. For a stock loan against cash you would have 2 quantities, one holding the securities (unit = financialUnit -> Share) and one holding the cash (unit = currency). Both of these quantities would need to be set to zero in order to set the positionState to "Closed".
If the QuantityChange instruction only decreases one of these quantities to zero then this condition I think would still set the trade to Closed.

I agree. If we can have quantities with mixed types of units related to the actual quantities exchanged, then we'll need to rethink this logic.

This has been modelled from a Debt Option perspective, where we expect the trade to be closed even if the option entitlement quantity, which has a unit type of funancialUnit, is not reduced to zero, as this quantity is just a feature of the contract.

Ah okay, what we may need to do then is check the product to determine what constitutes a Termination, or have separate functions to qualify termination for different product types. Either way it looks like it is not as straightforward as we'd hoped 🙁

chrisisla · 2025-10-09T11:49:55Z

I have no further review comments. I think that using instruction will be fine, as it provides the ability to check for only those items updated by a specific event, and the QuantityDecreased... functions all currently appear to only be used to qualify events.

regnosys-prod-user · 2025-10-09T15:11:59Z

What is being released?

Fixed input cardinality and optimized unitType logic.

Note

This comment was generated via Rosetta.

gtarres · 2025-10-09T16:09:17Z

I have no further review comments. I think that using instruction will be fine, as it provides the ability to check for only those items updated by a specific event, and the QuantityDecreased... functions all currently appear to only be used to qualify events.

Added a new commit 9ae7102 adjusting the Instruction cardinality to (1..1) and removing redundant logic in CompareTradeStatesToAmount. Additionally, I've simplified the logic in function CompareTradeLotToAmount, now it should look cleaner.

We'll think about your last comment about the Closed state and try to propose an improvement in the upcoming days.

Thanks a lot for the review @chrisisla ,

CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination

fd7fea0

regnosys-prod-user requested a review from a team as a code owner September 20, 2025 00:26

regnosys-prod-user added the Rosetta Pull requests which can be viewed in Rosetta label Sep 20, 2025

gtarres added 3 commits September 20, 2025 02:27

Delete rosetta-source/src/main/resources/ingest/input/fpml-5-10-proce…

67e6988

…sses/ir-option-debt-option-ex01-term-cdm.xml Removing file uploaded by mistake.

Update test-pack-translate-fpml-confirmation-to-workflow-step-fpml-5-…

a710786

…10-processes.json Removing file uploaded by mistake.

Update test-pack-translate-fpml-confirmation-to-workflow-step-fpml-5-…

fc3f2b4

…10-processes.json Removing file uploaded by mistake.

This was referenced Sep 22, 2025

Partial Termination Not Qualified properly #3987

Open

The qualification logic for Terminations doesn't align with the changes expected for this event #3798

Open

lolabeis linked an issue Sep 23, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

Partial Termination Not Qualified properly #3987

Open

lolabeis removed a link to an issue Sep 23, 2025

Partial Termination Not Qualified properly #3987

Open

This was linked to issues Sep 23, 2025

The qualification logic for Terminations doesn't align with the changes expected for this event #3798

Open

Partial Termination Not Qualified properly #3987

Open

tomhealey-icma requested a review from chrisisla October 7, 2025 14:37

chrisisla requested changes Oct 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

Fixed input cardinality and optimized unitType logic

9ae7102

regnosys-prod-user removed the Rosetta Pull requests which can be viewed in Rosetta label Oct 9, 2025

regnosys-prod-user added the Rosetta Pull requests which can be viewed in Rosetta label Oct 9, 2025

Georgina Tarres CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination #4042

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Georgina Tarres CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination #4042

Uh oh!

Conversation

regnosys-prod-user commented Sep 20, 2025

Uh oh!

regnosys-prod-user commented Sep 20, 2025

CDM Event Model - Qualification for Termination and Partial Termination

Partial Termination qualification

Termination qualification

Termination construction

Additional updates

Uh oh!

netlify bot commented Sep 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Deploy Preview for finos-cdm ready!

Uh oh!

gtarres commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

CDM-ReleaseManagement-OT commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

chrisisla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chrisisla Oct 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chrisisla Oct 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gtarres Oct 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chrisisla Oct 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chrisisla commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

regnosys-prod-user commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

gtarres commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

netlify bot commented Sep 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading