Hi Barry,
No changes are expected.
We are aware of this inconsistency in CDISC standards.
We follow CDISC specifications as it until it's
This case does not fit into any of two categories above. Therefore a label for TA.TAETORD is still "Order of Element within Arm" as specified in SDTM IG v3.1.3.
Thanks,
Sergiy
In the OpenCDISC Validator (v1.5) 3.1.3 configuration file, all “xxETORD” variable labels are “Planned Order of Element within Arm” except for TA.TAETORD. The label for TA.TAETORD is “Order of Element within Arm”. It’s missing the word “Planned” at the beginning of the label. I believe this is causing the output report to generate erroneous SD0063 messages for TA.TAETORD. What do you think?