Classic file types are no longer available for use as of January 2021. You can transition your classic files or download a PDF. Learn More

Fact Value Consistency Over Time - how best to clear this error




  • Mike

    Great question, Anna, and thanks for the kind words Eric. I can't take all the credit; I know a few experts.

    After chatting with said experts, I have the following info for you:

    Workiva works closely with the DQC to provide feedback on rule refinement and exceptions to the tests. While filers continue to review and address data quality errors, we understand there may be additional scenarios subject to rule refinement. In order to continue to collect these scenarios and work to provide appropriate resolutions, if you have errors that you feel should also have exceptions or refinements to the rules, we want to hear that feedback. To help us gather your input, we have this survey which relates to the rules, disclosure scenarios, and refinement considerations. We plan to review your feedback for further discussions with the DQC.

    It should be noted as well that DQC.US.0108 is not effective for filings until September 1, 2021 so you've got some time.

    Thanks again and do let us know what questions you have and if you need any further clarification. Cheers!


  • Eric Larsen

    To clarify, the issue we're having is in the accumulated other comprehensive income footnote, specifically the table showing reclassifications from OCI to the P&L.  Fact pattern is as follows:

    1) In Q1, assume a company reclassifies a loss of $10 from a derivative contract from OCI to cost of goods sold.

    2) In Q2, assume the company reclassified a gain of $40 from a derivative contract from OCI to cost of goods sold.

    DQC rule 0108.9564 basically states that certain monetary facts should only increase over time.  What ends up happening with the above fact pattern is that the Q2 QTD impact to cost of sales is $40 (gain) but that the Q2 YTD impact to cost of sales is only $30 (net gain), so that DQC rule is flagging it as an issue.  We've followed the FASB's XBRL implementation guide for the AOCI footnote precisely as it indicates, so we're at a loss for what to do next.

    Any thoughts from the community?

    Mike you seem to be a master with this stuff, any ideas from your end?


Please sign in to leave a comment.