Regards the updates within 2.8 taxonomy and the associated LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0) for the new data point C0293. We would welcome any guidance EIOPA can give to limit the scope of misinterpretation of the requirements (by filers and NCAs) for C0293. We are not looking for "hard-and-fast" rules to cover the entire spectrum of investments and the applicability therein of Directive 2014/59/EU; that would not be a reasonable request to make of EIOPA. But if you can give some high-level steer and any examples that would help a common understanding, particularly with the likelihood that NCA's will implement Plausibility tests in light of this new field not being covered in 2.8 taxonomy validations. For example, 1. Would EIOPA see it as reasonable (e.g. in NCA plausibility tests) to expect C0293 to be set as “9 – Not applicable”/empty in: a) all cases for certain CIC (e.g. where CIC 71 or 75, 3, 4 or 95 then C0293 would always be “9 – Not applicable”/empty as these types of investments are by their nature not in scope for Directive 2014/59/EU) b) most (but not all) cases for certain CIC (e.g. CIC 1 then C0293 should usually be “9 – Not applicable”/empty). 2. And vice-versa, would EIOPA see it as reasonable to expect C0293 to NOT be set as “9 – Not applicable”/empty in: a) all cases for certain CIC (e.g. CIC 2,…) b) most cases for certain CIC (but not all) cases (e.g. CIC 5,6).