Hi Andrew Metcalfe.

To answer your questions.

1. a) Since this thread was started, what's the latest treatment for this issue in T14? Is there a stopgap automation solution?

   1. As I said to Felix fundamentally backporting improvements to previous versions dilutes the value of later releases.
      I do understand that upgrade is not just about deciding to upgrade the code, there's organisational issues in play here as well.  However, the impact of migrating between the TXP versions is low.  Do you have to migrate to 14?  Is going all the way to 16 an option?
        

2. b) Will there be a backport bugfix to T14?

   1. See above.  I'll add to this that if upgrading to 16 is not viable for our NHS customers I will consider the impact of this.  e.g. We backported the v16 ability to delete individuals to 13 because this mitigated a privacy risk
       

3. c) Could you please confirm that it is fully resolved in T16?

   1. The functionality we deployed has had no reported bugs and works as designed.

   2. In relation to the specific case you noted “In my opinion a new manager in the hierarchy should take the place and all activity allocations from the previous manager, in a high turnover industry.”  You can set that the new manager is added to the activity, and that the old manager’s participation is closed.  You can also close and hide empty responses in v16, so if the first manager has not responded no-one will see their empty response.
      
      There were 2 ideas proposed in the feedback that we did not implement.  These are in the thread.

4. d) On a side note, has the behaviour which requires both manager and appraiser to interact with an activity to close it been fixed?

   1. Whether participants MUST interact with an activity is determined by whether response is optional.  Participation is set at the section level.  If you want actors in the activity to behave independently then you can put their respective questions in separate sections. If I’m missing the point please can you give an example.

5. e) Is there work on behavioural documentation of PERFORM so that activities can be designed with confidence? (same for certification engine)

   1. This is a problem we have recognised.  We’re working on webinars to address this.  If there are specific use cases you like to have described let us know.  We want to build more use case specific instruction.