# E_0218 — Check calculation formula
Check calculation formula
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check calculation formula |
| Market role | MSB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | WiM electricity |
| Section | 8.17.1: AD: Transmission of the calculation formula |
| Check identifiers | checked: [25001](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/UTILTS/PI_25001) · response: [25010](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/UTILTS/PI_25010) |
| EBD version | 4.2 |
| As at | 2026-06-23 |
## Decision tree
\nDecision tree E_0218: Berechnungsformel prüfen\n\n\n\nE_0218\nBerechnungsformel prüfen\nChecking role: MSB\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\n5\nHandelt es sich um eine\nBerechnungsformel für eine\nMarktlokation?\n\n\n10\nHandelt es sich um eine\nBerechnungsformel für eine\nNetzlokation?\n\n\n15\nHandelt es sich bei dem\n„Verwendungszeitraum der\nDaten“ um einen Zeitraum mit\ndem Status „keine Daten“?\n\n\n18\nWerden für den\nVerwendungszeitraum der Daten\nmit dem Status „keine Daten“\nDaten erwartet?\n\n\nA13\nCluster: Rejection\nFür den Verwendungszeitraum mit\ndem Status „keine Daten“ werden\nDaten erwartet.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n20\nIst im Geschäftsvorfall der Status\nder Berechnungsformel mit\n„Berechnungsformel muss beim\nAbsender angefragt werden“\nangegeben?\n\n\nA09\nCluster: Consent\nBerechnungsformel muss bilateral\nausgetauscht werden.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n30\nIst im Geschäftsvorfall der Status\nder Berechnungsformel mit\n„Berechnungsformel besitzt keine\nRechenoperation“ angegeben?\n\n\n40\nIst in den zuvor ausgetauschten\nStammdatenmeldungen (z.B.\nAnmeldebestätigung,\nStammdatenänderung (inklusive\nLokationsbündelstrukturänderung\n)) für den betroffenen Zeitraum\ngenau eine Messlokation dieser\nLokation zugeordnet?\n\n\nA10\nCluster: Rejection\nDer Lokation ist nicht genau eine\nMesslokation zugeordnet\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\nA11\nCluster: Consent\nEnergiemenge der Lokation ist mit\nder Energiemenge der Messlokation\nidentisch\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n50\nLiegt eine Änderung der\nLokationsbündelstruktur durch\nden NB vor, die durch\nStammdatenänderung übermittelt\nwurde?\n\n\n60\nIst der Zeitraum der Zeitraum-ID\nder Berechnungsformel identisch\nmit dem Zeitraum der\nStrukturänderung des\nLokationsbündels?\n\n\nA02\nCluster: Rejection\nZeitraum der Berechnungsformel\nunplausibel.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n70\nIst die Anzahl der gemeldeten /\nvorliegenden Mess-lokationen aus\nden Stammdatenmeldungen (z. B.\nAnmeldebestätigung,\nStammdatenänderung) gemäß\ndem Zeitraum kleiner als in der\nBerechnungsformel?\n\n\nA04\nCluster: Rejection\nEs sind zu viele Messlokationen in\nder Berechnungsformel für diesen\nZeitraum vorhanden.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n80\nIst die Anzahl gemäß der\ngemeldeten/vorliegenden\nMesslokationen aus den\nStammdatenmeldungen (z. B.\nAnmeldebestätigung,\nStammdatenänderung) gemäß\ndem Zeitraum größer als in der\nBerechnungsformel?\n\n\nA05\nCluster: Rejection\nEs fehlen Messlokationen in der\nBerechnungs-formel.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n90\nSind alle ID der Messlokationen in\nder Berechnungsformel mit den\nzuvor in den\nStammdatenmeldungen (z. B.\nAnmeldebestätigung,\nStammdatenänderung)\ngemeldeten ID der\nMesslokationen für diesen\nZeitraum identisch?\n\n\nA06\nCluster: Rejection\nID der Messlokationen stimmen für\nden Zeitraum nicht überein\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n100\nExistiert für jede Flussrichtung\nder in der Berechnungsformel\nvorhandenen Messlokationen\nmindestens eine zuvor in den\nStammdatenmeldungen (z. B.\nAnmeldebestätigung,\nStammdatenänderung)\nausgetauschte OBIS-Kennzahl*\nmit identischer Flussrichtung?\n\n\nA07\nCluster: Rejection\nDie Flussrichtung mindestens einer\nMesslokation ist nicht korrekt\nangegeben.\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n110\nIst ein zuvor nicht spezifizierter\nFehler aufgetreten?\n\n\nA12\nCluster: Consent\nZustimmung\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\nA99\nCluster: Rejection\nSonstiges\nHinweis: Das identifizierte Problem\nist in der Antwort zu\nbeschreiben/benennen.\nNutzungsmöglichkeit Ende: offen\ncontinue with step 120\n\n\n120\nSind noch weitere\nVerwendungszeiträume zu\nprüfen?\n\nEnd\n"} kapitel={"WiM Strom · 8.17.1: AD: Übermittlung der Berechnungsformel"} name={"Berechnungsformel prüfen"} bpmnFv="202604" bpmnCode="E_0218">
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Is this a calculation formula for a market location? | yes | → Step 15 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 10 | — |
| 10 | Is this a calculation formula for a grid location? | yes | → Step 15 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 110 | — |
| from 15 | *Starting with the first period ID, the following checks are performed for each period. If the first error occurs in a period, no further checks are to be performed for this period. All errors found in the periods are to be reported, naming the respective period ID.* | — | — | — |
| 15 | Is the „usage period of the data“ a time period with the status „no data“? | no | → Step 20 | — |
| — | — | yes | → Step 18 | — |
| 18 | Is data expected for the usage period of the data with the status “no data”? | no | → Step 20 | — |
| — | — | yes | A13 | Cluster: Rejection Data is expected for the usage period with the status „no data“. |
| 20 | Is the status of the calculation formula specified in the business transaction as „calculation formula must be requested from the sender“? | yes | A09 | Cluster: Consent The calculation formula must be exchanged bilaterally. |
| — | — | no | → Step 30 | — |
| 30 | Is the status of the calculation formula specified in the business transaction as „calculation formula has no arithmetic operation“? | yes | → Step 40 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 50 | — |
| 40 | In the previously exchanged master data messages (e.g. registration confirmation, master data change (including location bundle structure change)), is exactly one metering location assigned to this location for the affected time period? | no | A10 | Cluster: Rejection The location does not have exactly one metering location assigned |
| — | — | yes | A11 | Cluster: Consent Energy quantity of the location is identical to the energy quantity of the metering location |
| 50 | Is there a change of the location bundle structure by NB that was transmitted by master data change? | yes | → Step 60 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 70 | — |
| 60 | Is the time period of the period ID of the calculation formula identical to the time period of the structural change of the location bundle? | no | A02 | Cluster: Rejection Time period of the calculation formula is implausible. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 70 | — |
| 70 | Is the number of reported / available metering locations from the master data messages (e.g. registration confirmation, master data change) for the time period smaller than in the calculation formula? | yes | A04 | Cluster: Rejection There are too many metering locations in the calculation formula for this time period. |
| — | — | no | → Step 80 | — |
| 80 | Is the number of reported / available metering locations from the master data messages (e.g. registration confirmation, master data change) for the time period greater than in the calculation formula? | yes | A05 | Cluster: Rejection Metering locations are missing in the calculation formula. |
| — | — | no | → step 90 | — |
| 90 | Are all IDs of the metering locations in the calculation formula identical to the IDs of the metering locations reported previously in the master data messages (e.g. registration confirmation, master data change) for this time period? | no | A06 | Cluster: Rejection The IDs of the metering locations do not match for the time period |
| — | — | yes | → Step 100 | — |
| 100 | Does at least one OBIS code number* with an identical flow direction, previously exchanged in the master data messages (e.g. registration confirmation, master data change), exist for each flow direction of the metering locations contained in the calculation formula? | no | A07 | Cluster: Rejection The flow direction of at least one metering location is not stated correctly. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 110 | — |
| 110 | Has a previously unspecified error occurred? | no | A12 | Cluster: Consent Consent |
| — | — | yes | A99 | Cluster: Rejection Other Note: The identified problem must be described/named in the response. End of usability: open |
| 120 | Are there further usage periods to be checked? | yes | → Step 15 | — |
| — | — | no | End | — |
## Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| `A13` | Rejection | Data are expected for the usage period with the status „no data“. |
| `A09` | Consent | The calculation formula must be exchanged bilaterally. |
| `A10` | Rejection | The location does not have exactly one metering location assigned |
| `A11` | Consent | Energy quantity of the location is identical to the energy quantity of the metering location |
| `A02` | Rejection | Time period of the calculation formula implausible. |
| `A04` | Rejection | There are too many metering locations in the calculation formula for this time period. |
| `A05` | Rejection | Metering locations are missing from the calculation formula. |
| `A06` | Rejection | IDs of the metering locations do not match for the time period |
| `A07` | Rejection | The flow direction of at least one metering location is not specified correctly. |
| `A12` | Consent | Consent |
| `A99` | Rejection | Other Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: open |
*Role of the numbers: »response« are the check identifiers that list this tree in the ebd_code column of the check identifier table (knowledge-collection · FV 202604); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.*
:::tip{title="Consistent with the generated process"}
All 11 result codes of the decision tree are contained in the generated process `E_0218.bpmn`.
:::