How to avoid the BR-BT-01501-0107 error in a contract modification with more than one change?

[sorliden]

I have a contract modification with two changes in different sections. But I still get the BR-BT-01501-0107 "For any Contract Modification, the contract references (i.e. BT-1501(s)-Contract like 'CON-xxxx') is unique in the notice (i.e. there is at most one contract modification referring to a given contract)" error.
Both section references ("PROCEDURE" and "RES-0001") are unique.
Is the assert "{ND-ContractModification} ${BT-1501(s)-Contract[BT-1501(s)-Contract like '^CON-\d{4}$'] is unique in /BT-1501(s)-Contract}" wrong?
I don't even have one 'CON-xxxx' section.
<efac:ContractModification> <efbc:ChangedNoticeIdentifier>d45e9175-a3bb-4e8e-bbc7-ea8103fa865c-01</efbc:ChangedNoticeIdentifier> <efac:Change> <efbc:ChangedSectionIdentifier>PROCEDURE</efbc:ChangedSectionIdentifier> <efbc:ChangeDescription languageID="ENG">Description of title modification.</efbc:ChangeDescription> </efac:Change> <efac:Change> <efbc:ChangedSectionIdentifier>RES-0001</efbc:ChangedSectionIdentifier> <efbc:ChangeDescription languageID="ENG">Description of modification.</efbc:ChangeDescription> </efac:Change> <efac:ChangeReason> <cbc:ReasonCode listName="modification-justification">mod-rev</cbc:ReasonCode> <efbc:ReasonDescription languageID="ENG">Reason for modification descriptionx</efbc:ReasonDescription> </efac:ChangeReason> </efac:ContractModification>

[sorliden]

Here is the validation problem reproduced in eNotices2.
Both BR-BT-01501-0106 "For a given Contract Modification, amongst all the internal references (BT-1501(s)-Contract), there is at least one to an existing contract" (at least one "CON-xxxx" change section is needed) and
BR-BT-01501-0107 "For any Contract Modification, the contract references (i.e. BT-1501(s)-Contract like "CON-xxxx") is unique in the notice (i.e. there is at most one contract modification referring to a given contract)" (not more than one of each "CON-xxxx" change section is allowed).
Which is a contradiction. BR-BT-01501-0106 is true but BR-BT-01501-0107 is not.

[YvesJo]

Hi,

BR-BT-01501-0106:
Contract modifications are about contracts and there is a need to identify the contract impacted. This is done using the Contract technical identifier (i.e. CON-xxxx) and any GR-ContractModification-Modification has to have at least one of these identifiers.
When the modification applies to multiple contracts, they could be referred to in the same GR-ContractModification-Modification

BR-BT-01501-0107:
Modifications related to a given contract should not be dispersed in multiple GR-ContractModification-Modification, hence for a given (modified) contract there should be a unique reference to it.

[sorliden]

So, it shouldn't be possible to have both errors at the same time.

[YvesJo]

Both rules are evaluated separately and could both be triggered for a given notice when no reference to a contract is specified in a contractmodification-modification group and a same contract is referenced in at least two other different contractmodification-modification groups. (scenario which would require at least 3 of these groups).

[sorliden]

It would be great if someone responsible for the validation rules could please do a reflection about this problem since it seems to be a stopper for the contract modification notices.