More on ESEF errors: inconsistent duplicates
Tagging the same fact reported multiple times in different sections of an XBRL report leads to duplicate facts, which can be useful – but what if the values don’t match? Revathy Ramanan tackles the issue of inconsistent duplicates and what to do about them in the second post in her series on common errors and pitfalls in European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) filings. This accompanies the launch of our new repository, filings.xbrl.org, and is based on our initial analysis of where and how problems are occurring in hundreds of reports.
“Duplicate facts reported with inconsistent values are problematic,” says Revathy, “as it is impossible to know what the correct value for the fact should be.” Nonetheless, ESEF filers are encouraged to tag all occurrences of numeric facts in order to ensure consistency and aid report navigation. Of course, inconsistent duplicates are to be avoided, and the ESMA ESEF taxonomy includes XBRL Formula rules to detect this issue. Text facts, on the other hand, may appear inconsistent due to minor differences in formatting, in which case it is acceptable to leave duplicates untagged.
Read the post here.