Mr Godeseth from Fujitsu continues to being cross-examined.
Anything tweeted is a summary and paraphrase of what is happening in court. Nothing is a direct quote unless it is in “direct quotes"
they are discussing the early days of Horizon. It was a difficult birth back in the late 90s. DSS and Post Office were clients. DSS pulled out.
TG says he doesn’t have a firm memory of this as he was not working directly on the project.
TG Horizon online was about refreshing the system. I don’t remember it being about a whole load of PEAKS
PG did you have an awareness of any problems with...
TG there will have been problems but I can’t remember.
PG important PEAKS would have been brought to your atention under legacy Horizon
TG I would have thought so, yep
TG not going to argue
PG in this doc it seems PO is not getting involved in redesigning HOL for improvements but cost-reduction…
[the doc mentions keeping a lot of legacy systems in place]
TG lists what it would have been and says it was never implemented.
PG quotes from report existing architecture of Horizon as being robust but not suitable for current business and technology drivers in use today.
PG goes to a later part of the document he’s reading from which is a joint Fujitsu report describing the history of Horizon online and how the initial plan to implement it in 2005 was abandoned.
Moves to a later report - Horizon online, legacy architecture - slow and expensive to use - 13 year old technology - difficult to change… Horizon is a system “wrapped up in barbed wire” hard to make changes to
PG is that fair?
TG I think changes could be made
PG do you see “high volume pilot suspended” and “NFSP raised concerned but remain supportive” - do you remember this?
TG no I was working on a different project.
TG knows about all this - Fujitsu was in a state of Red Alert when I went across
PG it sounds serious
TG it was. there was a problem with Oracle
PG any others?
TG can’t remember I was focused on the Oracle problem
TG no I was back in the PO at that time
PG did any of this come to your knowledge
TG no this is a problem with Horizon online and I wasn’t working on that specific part of the business then.
TG this looks to me like it is the BT PEAK isn’t it - there certainly were issues with the software in the early days of HNGx (Horizon online)
PG that doesn’t leap out of your..
PG and you know that’s what his Lordship is here to do - determine if there were issues
TG yes fair enoug
PG so why not mention any problems then
TG I am giving an overview of the system
PG is Horizon online an end of life rather than ...
TG completely disagrees - moving off ISDN [lists many other changes]
TG the legacy version of H was far more suscepitble to communication glitches.
PG so HOL saw the quality of comms infrastructure improved. Yes?
PG and that was written in 2017
PG “branch technology is aging and unreliable” fair?
J that’s Windows NT yes?
[we are now talking about the migration from Windows NT to Windows 10]
PG there’s nothing in your WS
TG that’s a fair point.
PG so you got it from someone else
PG why was there no dispute button on Horizon
TG PO decision
PG why did they decide
PG describe to us how a scratchcard goes through the system. A scratchcard is activated on the lottery terminal. That is sent from Camelot to Fujitsu
TG with Camelot it goes to Credence
PG okay so from Camelot to PO Credence system which then goes to Fujitsu...
PG so it goes via a third party
TG not via - the first Horizon knows about is when we sent to branch
PG via credence
TG and because it’s come in via credence it gets stored in the branch database
PG then they enter the branch accounts and that is the data THEN captured by the audit system
PG and that’s true for other bits of equipment in paragraph C
PG and that is the data that goes into the audit store
TG yes at the counter when they accept the TA it goes into the store
PG when we look at the data we’re concerned about in 17.2a in your WS you’re looking about touchscreen input.
PG so in the transaction data there is what the SPM has done...
TG I don’t see it in those terms, we see it in terms of a basket and we put that basket into the audit trail.
PG sorry the result we see is the fruit of two different pieces of data. The fact of a button press and the data transferred.
PG indeed and that’s captured in the audit store and the database
TG simultaneously. the audit store is inside the database.
Say hello to KIM everybody.
TG Riposte was responsible for replicating data. The audit server is outside of riposte
TG Escher (?) provided Riposte software. Provided support for the software.
Conscious of PEAKS but not aware at the time.
PG when you were shown the info to put into your ws you must have been aware it only went back to 2014 you must have had in mind what this ws was supposed to deal with
TG I’m afraid I didn't do my job in that case
A document re supporting delivery of HNGX. 'A problem is defined as the unknown underlying root cause of one of more incidents’. PG Important to make informed assessments of where problems lie on the information available
Discussing Mr Coyne's report (Claimant’s independent IT expert). …PO should be aware of all recorded bugs - seems to have inferred that problem management process had been implemented and there would
Talking about internal policy reviews of requests for this info …
PG Re Legacy Horizon reporting system and following the previous reporting methodology - witness says he doesn’t know what that reporting methodology is - I got that from Steve
TG I would have thought so.
PG Not a robust way of recording the problem
TG Fair comment
TG I’ve never seen it used. I’ve had lengthy conversations about it.
PG It would allow FSC to insert balancing records, auditing but no updating or deleting of records.
ie where one half of a transaction is missing and the other half can be inserted.
TG this would have been written by others but I’m fully aware of it. Transcript at 16.07 for those among you that can understand this info.
TG Yes it says that
PG the use of the tool has gone way beyond its original design?
J asks for clarification about the Oracle term ‘insert into’.
Did you know PO’s approval had been sought for this ...
PG PEAK raised re transfer out doubling up from £4k to £8k. The whole point of JSN entries is they should not duplicate, yes?
TG Don’t know.
Transfer in details incorrectly doubled up when written
TG Used if it’s a one sided transaction.
'Used TRT to insert the missing data’.
TG Inserting into a totally different database, not the branch database. Using the transaction repair tool not the transaction correction tool.