Information in Entelligence vs Global Counterparty

Did Debbie talk with the two of you before putting together her memo? Is she
raising this to me because she wasn't comfortable with the outcome of her
conversations with you two, or did she skip that step? Just curious, before
I send any type of response. I would need details from you around the
process for updates to Entelligence and Global Counterparty. Surely one
feeds the other? --Sally
---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 12/11/2000 01:29 PM
---------------------------

From: Debbie R Brackett
12/11/2000 11:42 AM

To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Avril Forster/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary
Solmonson/HOU/ECT@ECT, James Scribner/Corp/Enron@Enron, Eric
Wetterstroem/HOU/ECT@ECT, William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Information in Entelligence vs Global Counterparty

Sally,

I have been made aware of a disconnect between the data held in Global
Counterparty and in Global Companies ( Entelligence). Much effort has been
put forth in "cleansing" the parent/subsidiary information presented in
Entelligence, yet the same information is not being replicated in GCP except
for on an ad hoc, manual basis.

What is the standard for data population in GCP vs Entelligence? Should
changes and corrections in Entelligence not flow to GCP since our risk and
trading systems are based on the information housed therein? What process and
or systems enhancements are necessary to accomplish this end result?

It appears we have a major GCP cleanup in the works while much of the work
has been already been done for Entelligence. As we struggle to report trading
positions properly, let's take advantage of our in house knowledge and share
counterparty data validation results in order to minimize research and data
population efforts.

Your comments and ideas are welcome.

Debbie