Based on our reading of the reporting instructions in Annex XXIX, these columns reference the requirement that “institutions shall follow the same instructions as described in {J 01.00; r0040}.” Row r0040 of template J 01.00 is defined as:“Δ EVE under parallel shock up – The change of the EVE under the ‘parallel shock up’ scenario specified in Articles 1(1)(a) and 3 of the EBA RTS on SOT.” On this basis, we interpreted columns 0050–0100 as requiring changes relative to the baseline and populated them with scenario‑specific delta cashflows versus the base case across the six SOT scenarios.

Separately, column 0040 (Baseline scenario – behavioural) was completed in line with the ITS instructions, which specify that the repricing date of deposits should be reported in years. However, the validation warnings received (EGDQ checks), in particular: “Average repricing dates should be less than 30 years,” appear to indicate that columns 0050–0100 are instead expected to contain repricing dates (in years) for the same deposits under each of the six SOT scenarios, rather than delta cashflows. This gives rise to an apparent inconsistency between: the wording of the ITS instructions (via the reference to J 01.00 r0040), and the logic applied by the supervisory validation rules.