Scenario 2. If in the future the sweepings are no longer stored in bays at depots but instead are tipped at SCC managed Transfer Stations, the handling costs will not be incurred by the relevant WCA and handling costs will be incurred by SCC, so the handling payment of £2.76 per tonne will cease. Any saving relating to a reduction from the starting gate fee of £52 per tonne would still be shared on a 50:50 basis.
Scenario 2. If you have a balance of £100, and the minimum payment we ask you for in your statement is £20, and there is a refund to your account of £90 between your statement date and your payment due date, (or your Direct Debit date, if earlier), then we will reduce the minimum payment needed so that it equals the full remaining balance of £10.
Scenario 2. In the event the Net Settlement Fund is less than the total of the Amounts Allegedly Withheld for all Claimants submitting Valid Claims, but greater than the amount needed to pay each Claimant submitting a Valid Claim his or her Adjusted Amount (specified below), Claimants submitting a Valid Claim will receive Settlement Payments of their Adjusted Amount. The “Adjusted Amount” for each Claimant, based on the Claimant’s “Payment Group” will be defined as follows:
Scenario 2 railway APT declared by a Digital Service Provider This scenario presents information sharing of a cyber-security incident in the network of a DSP. As an external stakeholder (not directly a RST, but a member of the supply chain), the steps and procedures to inform the community are handled by the CHIPR4Rail Platform Operator (CPO). Figure 24: Scenario 2 – Railway APT threat identified by a Digital Service Provider
Scenario 2. If only the teacher is quarantined and is unable to teach due to illness, the building should request a substitute for in-person instruction and the classroom teacher shares lesson plans as outlined below in #6.
Scenario 2. Intelligent citizen portals connected across Europe using chatbot interface for easy interaction with citizens The scenario "Intelligent citizen portals connected across Europe using chatbot interface for easy interaction with citizens" details a possible use of AI and machine learning coupled with natural language processing technology, realizing a chatbot interface for better cross-border public services. Figure 5 illustrates a scenario when a citizen wants to relocate to a different country. Relocating to another country or similar action involving two or more different countries often carry high administrative burden. Citizens not only have to organize many documents over a short period of time, but also have to consider the different regulations of their home compared to the destination country. In the future, the use of intelligent citizen portals with chatbot interface simplifies the organisation of complicated procedures involving authorities in multiple countries. Figure 5. Scenario "Intelligent citizen portals connected across Europe using chatbot interface for effective interaction with citizens" A citizen uses a smartphone to contact the government chatbot and requests help with the process. The citizen can send messages written in natural language without the need to use specific commands. The chatbot then processes the text using Natural Language Processing and AI to understand the meaning of the request and provides relevant answer. In further future, the chatbot can even process the voice commands and provide answers. The chatbot acts as an interface connecting a citizen to the intelligent portal. The portal is designed in a way to interoperate with other portals and databases across Europe. If eID is used by the citizen, the portal application can then use it to access the relevant information across borders (according to the Once Only Principle). The application can also identify the missing information required for the relocation of the citizen and ask necessary questions to gather this information. Furthermore, the intelligent portal can automatically complete foreign forms and help with understanding the specific terms, aiding through the conversation with a chatbot. Based on the Once only principle, AI, NLP and the intelligent citizen portal, relocating abroad (and other similar cross-border formalities) is no longer a complicated matter for the citizen and for public authorities. Additionally, the chatbot itself can be realised as a ...
Scenario 2. Robot available for interaction (i.e. Robot responding to an initial request from a group which is at several meters) In this scenario (Figure 8) the robot is waiting for groups of people to approach him and start inter- acting. It will not actively navigate the area to engage people. • Start condition: robot in interacting mode (perhaps showing a message on the screen). • End condition: the robot starts an interaction with the group (other ending conditions could be request from the terminal to go to a specific place or problems to the robot). State descriptions: • Wait for Groups: The robot is not moving, or perhaps just having some basic routines of movement to position himself in different places in the area according to its needs. The robot analyzes the people surrounding him, looking for groups that are interested in interacting with it. There is also the possibility that a KLM staff member brings a group to the robot and drives the interaction process. • Acknowledge Groups: A group is looking at the robot and approaching him. The robot starts turning its head to show that he has seen the group and while the group is approaching he turns his torso toward them. The robot then simply waits, looking at different members of the group (perhaps spending more time looking at possible leaders). • Show/Tell Interaction Instructions: The group of people don’t approach the robot close enough for interaction. The robot engages them, showing a message and speaking, to instruct them on how to interact with it. •
Scenario 2. Accenture Generated Proposal leveraging Xxxxxxx or Answerthink Services. Accenture intends to identify clients who Accenture believes could benefit from Xxxxxxx Benchmarking Services or from utilizing other intellectual property of Answerthink or Xxxxxxx. In such an instance, Accenture will create a Client Opportunity Registration Form and refer the client to Answerthink. Answerthink shall indicate on each Client Opportunity Registration Form whether it accepts or rejects each proposed client and shall provide a copy of such Form to Accenture which shall serve as notice as to whether a client is accepted or rejected. In the event Xxxxxxx provides Xxxxxxx Benchmarking Services for such a client, Accenture and Answerthink will jointly review the Benchmarking Services results and develop a proposal setting forth solution alternatives the client may choose to pursue based on such results. Accenture will estimate the pricing of the proposed initiatives and act as the primary contractor to the client on any proposals submitted or engagements generated in this Section 2.2.2. For each engagement obtained through this scenario and for related follow-on services for the time periods covered in Section 2.5, Answerthink shall have the right and option to staff a number of positions equal to up to 15% of the total project positions described in Section 2.4 for which Alliance Services are to be rendered (in calculating total project positions, analyst positions, and other positions for which Answerthink does not have staffing capability, will be included); provided, however, Answerthink will be awarded only such positions for which it has available qualified personnel at the rates provided for in this Agreement. If Answerthink chooses to participate, the Answerthink professionals will be charged to Accenture at prices set forth on the rate card referred to in Section 2.3 hereof with further marketing discounts described in Section 2.3. As the primary contractor to the client, Accenture will have the right to make all final decisions regarding the skill levels required to support the client team.
Scenario 2. The Company’s Earnings Per Share Growth for fiscal year 2004 is greater than the Earnings Per Share Growth of the S&P Electric Utilities Index for fiscal year 2004. (The First Year Target is met.) • The Company’s Earnings Per Share Growth for Fiscal Year 2005 is less than the Earnings Per Share Growth of the S&P Electric Utilities Index for fiscal year 2005. (The Second Year Target is not met.) Vesting of Options Under Scenario #2: • 1/3 of the Option (250 shares) vests on February 17, 2005. • Based on the achievement of the First Year Target, the remaining Options vest on August 17, 2005 and August 17, 2006 (the achievement of the First Year Target accelerates the standard vesting period by 6 months.) • Based on the failure to achieve the Second Year Target, the remaining Options vest on August 17, 2006 (the failure to achieve the Second Year Target results in the remaining standard vesting period for the final 250 shares.) Scenario #3: • The Company’s Earnings Per Share Growth for fiscal year 2004 is less than the Earnings Per Share Growth of the S&P Electric Utilities Index for fiscal year 2004. (The First Year Target is not met.) • The Company’s Earnings Per Share Growth for fiscal year 2005 is greater than the Earnings Per Share Growth of the S&P Electric Utilities Index for fiscal year 2005. (The Second Year Target is met.) Vesting of Options Under Scenario #3: • 1/3 of the Option (250 shares) vests on February 17, 2005. • Based on the failure to achieve the First Year Target, the remaining Options vests on February 17, 2006 and February 17, 2007 (the failure to achieve the First Year Target results in a standard vesting period). • Based on the achievement of the Second Year Target, the remaining Options (the final 250 shares) vest on August 17, 2006 (the achievement of the Second Year Target accelerates the standard vesting period and February 17, 2007 vesting date by 6 months).
Scenario 2. Different population, similar or same data source Data and estimates from similar sources, pooled over different populations. The most common example of such a situation is provided by highly standardised and comparable multi-country surveys, such as the EU- LFS, ECHP and EU-SILC in the European Union. In practice, it is useful to distinguish between two sub-types within this scenario. This depends on whether the process primarily involves
