Question ID
2025_7522
Legal act
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
Topic
Transparency and Pillar 3
Article
441
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
Regulation (EU) No 1030/2014 - ITS on disclosure of values used to identify global systemically important institutions (as amended)
Article/Paragraph
Article 6a of ITS with regard public disclosures of the information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Type of submitter
Other
Subject matter
Structural Differences Between Annotated Table Layout and Taxonomy in GSIIDISPILLAR3 under DPM 4.1
Question

Which representation (annotated table or taxonomy/XBRL) should be considered authoritative for defining the expected scope of data points for reporting?

Should institutions follow the taxonomy-enabled structure and report values in cells that are greyed out in the annotated table, as shown in the sample XBRL file?

Background on the question

We have identified structural discrepancies between the Annotated Table Layout for GSIIDISPILLAR3 4.1 and the taxonomy provided under DPM 4.1. Specifically, while the annotated table shows a large number of greyed-out cells under the GSIB column (indicating non-applicability), the corresponding taxonomy enables these cells for reporting. This is also evident in the sample XBRL file provided, where values are populated in these fields.

Submission date
Rejected publishing date
Rationale for rejection

This question has been rejected because the matter it refers to has already been identified and will be considered for a forthcoming version of the Reporting framework.

Status
Rejected question