You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@sethgerou-noaa according to a recent email from Melissa H, if 25% of the hauls are selected for review and fails it will trigger 100% review. Once the data is resubmitted to NMFS, the discard from the 100% review data should recompared to the logbook and report the higher number.
From Melissa Hooper Email 2 - I swear we (me, Jon, Neil, Justin) talked about whether to just use the EM data or to apply the business rules again and use the higher of the two LB or EM after 100% review is triggered for a trip. But I can't find any notes on it and don't remember what we decided. So maybe I'm imagining it. Thinking about it now, I think we should apply the business rules again at the trip level and go with the higher of the two numbers, as is current practice, 1) to be consistent and 2) to be more conservative. I don't see a need to change from this practice since it works now and everyone is used to it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@sethgerou-noaa according to a recent email from Melissa H, if 25% of the hauls are selected for review and fails it will trigger 100% review. Once the data is resubmitted to NMFS, the discard from the 100% review data should recompared to the logbook and report the higher number.
From Melissa Hooper Email
2 - I swear we (me, Jon, Neil, Justin) talked about whether to just use the EM data or to apply the business rules again and use the higher of the two LB or EM after 100% review is triggered for a trip. But I can't find any notes on it and don't remember what we decided. So maybe I'm imagining it. Thinking about it now, I think we should apply the business rules again at the trip level and go with the higher of the two numbers, as is current practice, 1) to be consistent and 2) to be more conservative. I don't see a need to change from this practice since it works now and everyone is used to it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: