Top suggestions for revise:[One is a validation for the role because the account wasn't included in the data fix for the initial load. This is stopping them from opening a new UTMA account in NE but it isn't an age to contract issue. The second one is an update CSSI requested for CSS ages to align with the ages that were provided for CCSI. I wasn't aware of this change but it makes sense. They ages were provided by Sierra and I believe they are correct. These are the LA and SC ones. I think they just need to communicate the new ages or if the wrong ages were provided, then request the change. It stirs me in the wrong way when the issues are presented incorrectly during that call because they make it sound bigger than it is and like they were code changes or things that were not account for or even pointing at the wrong direction where the problem lies.] |
Feedback