Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility

Oracle Revenue Management and Billing enables you to define eligibility rule type for a related pricing rule type in a primary pricing rule type. If the eligibility rule type is defined of a related pricing rule type, the system checks whether the related pricing rule type is eligible for deriving the transaction legs when it is called during the Validate Transaction and Derive Price Item (C1-TXNIP) batch execution. The system searches for all rules which are created using the respective rule type and then executes them one by one in the specified priority until the following conditions are met in a rule:

The eligibility criteria defined in the rule is satisfied.
The satisfied rule returns the output parameter and its value as specified in the Rule Based Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility Field and Rule Based Eligibility Value fields, respectively, of the primary pricing rule type.
The Rule True Action field in the satisfied rule returns Success.

Note: At present, the system considers all rules created using the respective rule type irrespective of whether it is effective on the transaction date or not.

If all the above conditions are met in a rule, the system calls the respective related pricing rule type for deriving the transaction legs. If none of the rules created using the rule type are satisfied, the system does not call the respective related pricing rule type for deriving the transaction legs. Let us understand this with the help of an example. If the claim transaction is received with the following details:

UDF_CHAR_1 is set to Western
UDF_CHAR_15 is set Employee
UDF_DATE_1 is set to 11-05-2018
Transaction Record Type is set to TR1

The following table illustrates how the eligibility rules can be defined for a related pricing rule type:
Transaction Record Type	Primary Pricing Rule Type	Related Pricing Rule Type	Eligibility Rule Type	Rule	Rule's Effective Start Date	Rule's Effective End Date	Priority	Rule Criteria	Output Parameter	Output Parameter Value
TR1	CLAIM	CLAIM BASED FEES	RT1	R1	01-01-2018	31-03-2018	1	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Director
				R2	01-01-2018	31-03-2018	2	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Employee
				R3	01-04-2018	30-06-2018	3	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Employee
				R4	01-07-2018	31-12-2018	4	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Director
		SPECIFIC STOP-LOSS	RT2	R5	01-01-2018	31-03-2018	1	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Director
				R6	01-01-2018	31-03-2018	2	UDF_CHAR_1 = Eastern	UDF_CHAR_15	Employee
				R7	01-04-2018	31-12-2018	3	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Employee
		AGGREGATE STOP-LOSS	RT3	R8	01-04-2018	31-12-2018	1	UDF_CHAR_1 = Eastern	UDF_CHAR_15	Employee
		AGGREGATE STOP-LOSS	RT3	R9	01-04-2018	31-12-2018	2	UDF_CHAR_1 = Western	UDF_CHAR_15	Director

Note: Here, the paid date is mapped to the UDF_DATE_1 field in the CLAIM pricing rule type. In addition, the Rule Based Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility Field field is set to UDF_CHAR_15 and the Rule Based Eligibility Value field is set to Employee in the CLAIM pricing rule type.

Example 1: Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility Rules

In the example 1, the rules which are created using the RT1 rule type are invoked for the CLAIM BASED FEES pricing rule type in the specified priority. The claim transaction meets the eligibility criteria defined in the R1 rule. But, the output parameter's value specified in the R1 rule does not match the value specified in the Rule Based Eligibility Value field. Therefore, the system executes the rule with the next priority (i.e. R2). The claim transaction meets the eligibility criteria defined in the R2 rule. In addition, the output parameter and its value specified in the R2 rule match the values specified in the Rule Based Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility Field and Rule Based Eligibility Value fields, respectively. Therefore, the system considers the CLAIM BASED FEES pricing rule type for deriving the transaction legs.

The rules which are created using the RT2 rule type are invoked for the SPECIFIC STOP-LOSS pricing rule type in the specified priority. The claim transaction meets the eligibility criteria defined in the R5 rule. But, the output parameter's value specified in the R5 rule does not match the value specified in the Rule Based Eligibility Value field. Therefore, the system executes the rule with the next priority (i.e. R6). Here, the claim transaction does not meet the eligibility criteria defined in the R6 rule. The system then executes the rule with the next priority (i.e. R7). The claim transaction meets the eligibility criteria defined in the R7 rule. In addition, the output parameter and its value specified in the R7 rule match the values specified in the Rule Based Related Pricing Rule Type Eligibility Field and Rule Based Eligibility Value fields, respectively. Therefore, the system considers the SPECIFIC STOP-LOSS pricing rule type for deriving the transaction legs.

Similarly, the rules which are created using the RT3 rule type are invoked for the AGGREGATE STOP-LOSS pricing rule type in the specified priority. The claim transaction does not meet the eligibility criteria defined in the R8 rule. Therefore, the system executes the rule with the next priority (i.e. R9). The claim transaction meets the eligibility criteria defined in the R9 rule. But, the output parameter's value specified in the R9 rule does not match the value specified in the Rule Based Eligibility Value field. As none of the rules created using the rule type met the criteria, the system does not consider the AGGREGATE STOP-LOSS pricing rule type for deriving the transaction legs.