I am afraid I am of the opinion that whoever is behind these reports are simply producing them to meet their own requirements and not actually understanding what we in the field need to do to actually use them without constantly checking and cross-checking etc. Ridiculous
I also fear they are responding to a few that have pleaded for simplicity in the reports that don’t necessarily go though the fine detail as we do, and indeed ought to be.
Unsure what year and what your understanding is but each report is designed for a specific purpose and only reports the fields needed for that purpose.
Where a learner is no longer reported in the ILR some fields cannot be reported as they are no longer in the current ILR data, but the learner is reported to show any adjustments to funding that have resulted from the missing record.
I think Chris has a different view on this and has an expectation that all reports should contain all fields related to the ILR as well as the related payment data.
yes I have the preference that too much detail is better than too little that sometimes leads to having to bring in the missing bits to give the full picture.
The old Main Occupancy Report to me is brilliant. There is information in that report that I for one never use however just ignore it. Provided that the user can fully understand the full range of detail having additional superfluous information is no problem whatsoever.
Just a personal view however I do know that some errors that were made last year in the system would have been harder to find without the detail present then.