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. In this section, we compare the satisfaction of the security requirements and the performance among our scheme and the previous schemes.
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. 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. Prior to salary negotiations, salary data will be compared to mutually agreed upon districts upon request by either party.
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 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 described in Section 9.6(c), Supplier shall, upon Triad’s request, perform a comparison at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of chargeable resources required to perform a representative sample of the Services being performed for Triad and the Eligible Recipients immediately prior to the change and immediately after the [**] Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by [**], has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. change. Triad shall not be required to pay for increased usage due to a change except to the extent that such change is requested or approved by Triad after notice from Supplier of such increased usage.
Comparisons. For any System Change and/or Business Process Change, Provider shall, upon Xxxxxxxx'x request, perform a comparison at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of resources required by the affected Business Process, Software or Equipment to perform a representative sample of the processing being performed for Xxxxxxxx and the Eligible Recipients immediately prior to the System Change and/or Business Process Change and immediately after the System Change and/or Business Process Change. Xxxxxxxx shall not be required to pay for increased resource usage due to a System Change and/or Business Process Change except to the extent that such System Change and/or Business Process Change is requested or approved by Xxxxxxxx after notice from Provider of such increased resource usage. Final Confidential and Proprietary Information of IBM and Xxxxxxxx
