Comparisons Sample Clauses

Comparisons. Historical trends should not be used in a simple formulaic manner to determine future trends; a great deal of actuarial judgment is also needed. We did not explicitly rely on the historical MCP encounter data trend experience due to anomalies observed in the historical trend data. We referred to the sources listed in the prior section as well as considered changing practice patterns, the impact of reimbursement changes on utilization in the MMC population, and shifting population mix. Explicit adjustments were made outside of trend to reflect all recent or planned changes in reimbursement from the base period to the rating period.

Comparisons. Historical trends should not be used in a simple formulaic manner to determine future trends; a great deal of actuarial judgment is also needed. We did not explicitly rely on the historical MCP encounter data trend projections due to anomalies observed in the historical trend data. Because of changes in contracted MCPs effective July 1, 2013, we believe encounter data between contract periods may be influenced by patterns in individual MCP encounter data reporting practices. We referred to the sources listed in the prior section, considered changing practice patterns, the impact of reimbursement changes on utilization in the MMC population, and shifting population mix.

Comparisons. For any change, Supplier shall, upon Kraft’s request, perform a comparison at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of Resource Units required to perform a representative sample of the Services being performed for Kraft and the Eligible Recipients immediately prior to the change and immediately after the change. Kraft shall not be required to pay for increased Resource Unit usage due to a change except to the extent that such change is requested or approved by Kraft after notice from Supplier of such increased Resource Unit usage.

Comparisons. (a) Upon request of either Party, the Benchmarker will review and explain its Benchmark methodology, including how each of the entities in the Peer Group MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT SCHEDULE I – DRAFT TRANSITION PROJECT PLAN matches and does not match the relevant factors of the Benchmark and how the normalization approach will be applied. The Parties will cause the Benchmarker to provide a written summary of the Benchmarking Process and to perform the Benchmark in accordance therewith. (b) The Parties will cause the Benchmarker to: (i) Use Pricing data compiled from ALU’s usage of the relevant Services for the most recent twelve (12) months, or in the event that a Service has recently completed transition such that twelve (12) month’s of Prices data are not available for such Services in the transitioned state, the annualized Prices data from such Service subsequent to the completion of transition. (ii) Use database information that is no more than twenty-four (24) months old from the commencement of the Benchmark, unless the Parties agree upon a longer period. (c) The Benchmarker will normalize all Peer Group data to allow for any effects of identifiable characteristics that are different from the ALU Environment to the extent that they might have, in the opinion of the Benchmarker, a material effect on the Benchmark Results. Factors related to normalization to be taken into consideration by the Benchmarker include, but are not limited to: (i) geographic location of a Peer; (ii) industry differences affecting costs; (iii) related discounts and pricing credits; (iv) economies of scale; (v) scope of services, workload and complexity factors (including but not limited to unique software requirements); (vi) service levels and related service level credits; (vii) minimum revenue, term commitments and any restrictions on offshoring; (viii) volume of services being provided; (ix) upfront investments by service providers; (x) whether transition charges were paid by the customer as incurred or amortized over the term of the agreement; (xi) whether the service provider purchased any of the customer’s assets; (xii) refresh obligations; and (xiii) the transfer of employees from the customer to the service provider.

Comparisons. In this section, we compare the satisfaction of the security requirements and the performance among our scheme and the previous schemes.

Comparisons. Prior to salary negotiations, salary data will be compared to mutually agreed upon districts upon request by either party.

Comparisons. 𝜂2 = 𝑞 = 7𝑛 = 14.3% We have selected three different types of key negotiation protocols for comparison with our protocol, and the results are shown in Table 2: Table 2 Comparison among related protocols Protocols η (%)1 η (%)2 Semi- quantum Controlling party Ref. [26] 6.7 8.3 Yes Yes Ref. [22] 8.3 11.1 No Yes Ref. [25] 10 12.5 Yes No our protocol 12.5 14.3 Yes Yes According to the data in the table, we can see that the efficiency of our protocol is the highest when there is a third party and semi-quantum agreement function is realized. Under the condition of three- particle entangled resources, our protocol does not require the third party to distribute the key with the classical party in advance, which is much better than the protocol [22] in terms of scheme steps and quantum resources. In addition, our proposed protocol simplifies the work of the quantum cloud, where the cloud Trent is only responsible for generating and distributing quantum resources. All measurements are entrusted to the Quantum Center. To sum up, our protocol simplifies steps on the premise of ensuring security, and maintains efficiency at a relatively high level, which has certain practical application value.

Comparisons. The Application may present comparisons of rates and services of UPS Shipping Services against the rates and services of other carriers or third- party logistics companies that are not Affiliates of UPS (“Comparisons”) on Impacted Pages; provided that, for Distributed Applications, (i) the Distributed Application will not generate any Developer-established rules-based Comparisons (i.e., pre-configured by Developer and not configured by the relevant Shipper) other than Comparisons based on rate, service level, or time- in-transit; (ii) where a given Shipper’s UPS account-based rates and services are available and correspond to such Shipper’s API Request, such Shipper’s UPS account-based rates and services will be displayed on the corresponding Impacted Pages; and (iii) where UPS account-based rates and services are not available for a Shipper, any Comparisons that include published or publicly- available UPS rates and services (as opposed to individual account-based rates and services for the relevant Shipper) will also include a disclaimer in immediate proximity to such Comparison communicating that the rates and UPS shipping services displayed are based on published UPS pricing and may be different when accessed using a UPS Shipper Number.

Comparisons. For any System Change, CSC shall, upon Sears’ request, perform a comparison, at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of resources required by the affected Software or Equipment to perform a representative sample of the processing being performed for the Eligible Recipients immediately prior to the System Change and immediately after the Table of Contents System Change. Sears shall not be required to pay for increased resource usage due to a System Change, except to the extent that such System Change is requested or approved by Sears after notice from CSC of such increased resource usage.

Comparisons. For any change, Service Provider shall, upon Allegheny’s request, perform a comparison at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of Resource Units required to perform a representative sample of the Services being performed for Allegheny and the Eligible Recipients immediately prior to the change and immediately after the change. Allegheny shall not be required to pay for increased Resource Unit usage due to a change except to the extent that such change is requested or approved by Allegheny after notice from Service Provider of such increased Resource Unit usage.