So before starting creating rules for the allocation I saw that, and then when I started the allocation there is some residual values that are more than what was given by the OpEx.

When I do the allocation, the amount is right on Vendors, but the fallout still with a model error

But when you look inside the fallout the amount there is right

Can anyone clarify why does that happen?
Is that an error on the tool?

#CostingStandard(CT-Foundation)

Hello, @Felicio Juliani. Do you have a "Remainder" allocation line? Sometimes this causes problems.
​In general, we have disabled all Remainder lines, and keep the ones that are strictly necessary.
I have seen phantom overallocations, that I have managed to correct by changing that allocation by adding a dummy criterion (e.g. an If statement somewhere in the From or To sections). If that works, you can try removing it and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find such an example and write a blog post about it.

​​

Hi, Guillermo,

There is no Remainder on the Allocation Lines, but yes, with the Dummy Criteria it works, but the problem is that this kind of thing should not occur, right?

Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2021 02:22
From: Guillermo Cuadrado
Subject: Cost Transparency Model

Hello, @Felicio Juliani. Do you have a "Remainder" allocation line? Sometimes this causes problems.
​In general, we have disabled all Remainder lines, and keep the ones that are strictly necessary.
I have seen phantom overallocations, that I have managed to correct by changing that allocation by adding a dummy criterion (e.g. an If statement somewhere in the From or To sections). If that works, you can try removing it and see what happens.
I'll see if I can find such an example and write a blog post about it.

​​

------------------------------
Regards, Guillermo
------------------------------

There must be a bug lurking in this area. I would open a support ticket: if Support can't fix it, they'll escalate to Engineering. We have one such case still open. If they find it, they may release a hot fix, or include it in an upcoming release.

HI -

This happens in our model a lot where the value on the dropout arrow when you hover over it, is not really the right value. If you click the arrow and scroll all the way to the right to see the amount dropping out, its probably different than what you see on the arrow. (something to do with absolute values i believe)

That was Exactly what they answered on the ticket, but, do that make any sense?

If I have 15k + (-10k), on the model the result is 25k

Now I know the cause, but I am not that sure if it is right or not.

Original Message:
Sent: 02-04-2021 14:29
From: Rachel Yaghoubzadeh
Subject: Cost Transparency Model

HI -

This happens in our model a lot where the value on the dropout arrow when you hover over it, is not really the right value. If you click the arrow and scroll all the way to the right to see the amount dropping out, its probably different than what you see on the arrow. (something to do with absolute values i believe)

I think the sense of adding the absolute values-as pointed out by @Rachel Yaghoubzadeh above-​is to ensure that negative and positive values don't cancel each other out. In your example, you have a charge and an accrual, so it's not totally mistaken to add them together. 
IMHO, as TBMAs we want to ensure that we don't have line items getting unallocated, regardless of their amount.
Yes, we may want to live with small amounts, but in your case, you might decide to live with "5k" fallout (+15k-10k), where you really have more.
Let's assume that the negative amount would be capitalization, as opposed to an accrual or payback. If it gets stuck, it would still affect any capitalization reports you have.

Hi @Felicio Juliani

When you're looking at Cost Source, one of the reasons for this can be that you have both credits and debits in your total OpEx​. The net total is shown in the black Cost Source box, but the Underallocated arrow is the total of the absolute values.

I have seen one situation like this where an adjustment and reversal (net $0) were unallocated, and the Underallocated arrow was showing millions.

This is not an error, and is occasionally very useful 😊😊

Thanks a lot.

After 2 years, your answer helps me to understand the reason for the UnderAllocated value.

Original Message:
Sent: 02-04-2021 16:08
From: Jon Sober
Subject: Cost Transparency Model

Hi @Felicio Juliani

When you're looking at Cost Source, one of the reasons for this can be that you have both credits and debits in your total OpEx​. The net total is shown in the black Cost Source box, but the Underallocated arrow is the total of the absolute values.

I have seen one situation like this where an adjustment and reversal (net $0) were unallocated, and the Underallocated arrow was showing millions.

This is not an error, and is occasionally very useful 😊😊