I am writing to seek further clarification regarding the recent revision to Q&A 2975. We have reviewed the revised guidance, but there remain some points of ambiguity which, if interpreted as written, could have significant implications for the classification of our bond portfolio and, consequently, our regulatory reporting and capital requirements. Specifically, I would appreciate your guidance on the following points: 

1. Treatment of Non-EU/EEA Government Guarantees: The revised answer indicates that instruments fully, unconditionally, and irrevocably guaranteed by non-EU/EEA central governments should be categorised under CIC code 

2. • Does this mean such instruments should never be classified as government bonds, even if the guarantee is equivalent in strength to an EU/EEA government guarantee? • Additionally, could you please confirm whether this applies regardless of the currency of denomination?

 2. Practical Impact and Consistency: The revised classification rules could result in a significant reclassification of bonds previously treated as government exposures, potentially affecting capital requirements and risk management practices.

 • Has EIOPA considered the potential impact on insurers’ balance sheets and capital calculations? 

• Is there any transitional guidance or further clarification planned to ensure consistent application across the industry? Given the material impact these changes may have, I would greatly appreciate a detailed response or reference to any additional guidance that may assist in ensuring accurate and consistent reporting.