Since we deliver the source table with our compensation downloads you might occasionally see some data that looks like a mismatch.  This most often happens with smaller reporting companies.  Here is an example – the table below is from CIK-845819.  They are a smaller reporting company, they also qualify for some of the disclosure relief offered by the JOBS-ACT.  Note – this table was labeled in the original filing as their Summary Compensation Table. 

This table triggered flags in our system and so it was pushed aside so one of our team could inspect and validate the data.  After reading their 10-K for 2017 and 2016 we finally determined that this was a combined Executive and Director Compensation table.  As a result we parsed it into two different tables.  The EC data went into one and the DC data into the other.

Here is the Normalized EC data:

All of the rows that related to past and present directors were eliminated from the normalized results.  We had to inspect the filings to identify the titles and those were added.  If an officer had no further association with a company past a particular year then we deleted the row.  Since the EC data is supposed to have the most recent three years of data we did leave in those individuals in they had an association within that past three year period.

For the DC data the company identified only two individuals who had a non-executive director position in 2017.  Thus we deleted all other individuals. The normalized DC data is here:

However, because we want to be fully transparent about the process we use to provide the data we need to trick our system.  When you download DC data for this company the CSV results will be like what is illustrated above (2 people only) but the htm source file that will be delivered will be the same one that is delivered with the EC except the TID value will be changed from 26 to 27.  If you then audit the table extraction it might seem confusing because table 27 in the sequence is not the same table as displayed at the top of this page.  We have to assign a TID that is different from the EC TID.

This kind of manipulation happens rarely and it tends to be the result of disclosures made by Smaller Reporting Companies.  The more common manipulation we have to do with Accelerated Filers is that sometimes we have to stitch two consecutive tables together when the company splits a table across pages.  Here is an example of that situation – this image is from a tool in our work flow so the tables were actually separated in the original document:

We actually combined those – so when you download this data you will see this table – which does not exist in the original document.

 Fortunately this does not happen often, maybe one in every 10,000 tables?