Whilst implementing DPM 2.7 we ran into some inconsistencies in the validation rules. The inconsistencies are caused by the validation rules as mentioned below. eba_v1974_h [F 17.01 (c010)] {r231} = +{r232} + {r233} Issue: in dpm 2.7 row 380 for equity instruments was added in report F17.00 and is part of row 231 but is not part of the right side of the equation. eba_v5447_m {F 18.00.a, r180, c010} = sum({F 04.09, r140, (c010, c020)}) + sum({F 04.10, r190, (c010, c020)}) - sum({F 04.10, r190, (c015, c025)}) + sum({F 01.01, (r030, r040), c010}) Issue: in report F18.00 row 180 only contains debt securities and loans and advances, whereas in the F4.x reports equity instruments are included as well (here, report F4.08 reports equity instruments). Rule eba_v5475_m has the same issue eba_v5443_m [F 18.00.a] {F 18.00.a, r100, c010} = sum({F 04.09, r100, (c010, c020)}) + sum({F 04.10, r150, (c010, c020)}) - sum({F 04.10, r150, (c015, c025)}) + {F 01.01, r030, c010} In template 18, the amount is for credit institutions, whereas the {F 01.01, r030, c010} refers to cash at central banks. If the reference was to row 40 (other demand deposits) instead of 30, the calculation would add up The question is: How to handle these inconsistencies?