According to this validation rule v11073_i, the sheet's I 01.00 row 0090 C 0010 should be equal to the row 160 c0010 of the template C 01.00. In our opinion this VR should not be satisfied because the  row 0090 C 0010 is referred to the "Accumulated other comprehensive income" which is different from the  row 160 c0010  of the Corep "Profit or loss attributable to owners of the parent". These two cells have the same DPVID but the regulatory norms are differents. In the Corep the information about the "Accumulated other comprehensive income"  is reported in the row 180 instead of 160.  Looking also at the Annex of these two rows, it's possible to observe that  the article of the row 180 is the same  of the row 0090 C 0010 of I 01.00, both in fact refer to the Article 26(1), point (d) of CRR. Instead, the row 160 refers to another article, Articles 26(2) and 36(1) point (a) of CRR. 

According to this validation rule v11073_i, the sheet's I 01.00 row 0090 c 0010 should be equal to the row 160 c0010 of the template C 01.00. In our opinion this VR should not be satisfied because the  row 0090 C 0010 is referred to the "Accumulated other comprehensive income" which is different from the  row 160 c0010  of the Corep "Profit or loss attributable to owners of the parent". These two cells have the same DPVID but the regulatory norms are differents. In the Corep the information about the "Accumulated other comprehensive income"  is reported in the row 180 instead of 160.  Looking also at the Annex of these two rows, it's possible to observe that  the article of the row 180 is the same  of the row 0090 c 0010 of I 01.00, both in fact refer to the Article 26(1), point (d) of CRR. Instead, the row 160 refers to another article, Articles 26(2) and 36(1) point (a) of CRR. 

This question has been rejected because the matter it refers to has already been identified and will be considered for a forthcoming release of the respective validation rule.