Should there actually be a fallbackvalue on variable b of validation rule PBV66-2? On line 206, column 102 of http://eiopa.europa.eu/eu/xbrl/s2md/fws/pensions/pf-iorps2/2020-07-15/va...

Background of the question

Pension Funds Data Point Model and Taxonomy 2.5.0 (Published 15/7/2020) (hotfix by 3/11/2020) Regarding validation PBV66-2 fallbackValue="0" appears to have been added to variable b since v2.3.0 This possibly means that the validation is always applied, whereas the validation should only apply when variable b is not empty.

EIOPA answer

The discrepancy is intentional. In general, the validation requires all the variables to be provided to run. However, if a variable has a fallback assigned then validation can still run and the fallback value is returned for this variable instead. Therefore, from the technical implementation perspective, the “if {c0060} <> empty" is redundant and can be achieved by not assigning fallback to the c0060. The reason for keeping it in the list of validation Excel file was to put an emphasis on this relation. Nevertheless, we are aware that this might be confusing and consider to harmonise business description and technical implementation in the future. In addition, as both PBV66 and PBV67 have fallback values assigned to the c0060 and c0070 respectively, it is possible for the validation to run even when those columns are empty and should be corrected.

As both PBV66 and PBV67 are non-blocking, EIOPA believes that deactivation is unnecessary and the issue can be improved in the future taxonomy release. Additionally it was documented in the public taxonomy list of known issues in the latest update, see https://dev.eiopa.europa.eu/Taxonomy/Full/2.5.0/common/EIOPA_List_of_Known_Issues.xlsx