Update Compare_runs To Clarify Fisheries Whose Inputs Are Not Directly Determined

by ADMIN 82 views

Understanding the Complexity of Fisheries Management

Fisheries management is a complex process that involves multiple variables and inputs. In the context of treaty fisheries, harvests are often based on terminal run size, which can lead to recalculations in the Total Allowable Marine Mammal (TAMM) and updates in the Fisheries Reference Application Model (FRAM). This can result in seemingly problematic input changes that are, in fact, expected. In this article, we will explore the issue of fisheries whose inputs are not directly determined and how to update compare runs to clarify these complexities.

The Problem with Indirectly Determined Inputs

When we change other inputs in the fisheries management system, those harvests get recalculated in the TAMM and updated in the FRAM. This can lead to a situation where it appears that the input changes are problematic, even though they are expected. This is because the harvests are based on terminal run size, which is not directly determined by the input changes. As a result, it can be challenging to identify which fisheries are affected by these changes and whether they are expected or not.

Using Flags to Identify Affected Fisheries

One way to address this issue is to use flags in the TAMM to identify which fisheries are affected by the input changes. By creating a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size, we can add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs. This will help to clarify the situation and prevent unnecessary confusion.

Creating a List of Affected Fisheries

To create a list of affected fisheries, we can use a dynamic or static list. A dynamic list can be created by querying the database to retrieve the list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size. This list can then be updated in real-time as the fisheries management system changes.

Adding a Flag to the Input Auditing Process

Once we have created the list of affected fisheries, we can add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs. This flag can be a simple indicator that is displayed in the input auditing report, such as a green checkmark or a red X. This will help to quickly identify which fisheries are affected by the input changes and whether they are expected or not.

Benefits of Updating Compare Runs

Updating compare runs to clarify fisheries whose inputs are not directly determined has several benefits. Firstly, it will help to prevent unnecessary confusion and misinterpretation of input changes. Secondly, it will improve the accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system. Finally, it will enhance the overall user experience by providing a clearer and more intuitive interface.

Implementation Plan

To implement this update, we will follow the following steps:

  1. Create a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size.
  2. Add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs.
  3. Update the compare runs to reflect the changes in the fisheries management system.
  4. Test the updated compare runs to ensure that they are working correctly.

Conclusion

Updating compare runs to clarify fisheries whose inputs are not directly determined is a crucial step in improving the accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system. By using flags to identify affected fisheries and adding a flag to the input auditing process, we can prevent unnecessary confusion and misinterpretation of input changes. This update will also enhance the overall user experience by providing a clearer and more intuitive interface.

Future Development

In the future, we can further develop this update by:

  • Adding more flags to the input auditing process to indicate other types of expected input changes.
  • Creating a more detailed and user-friendly interface for the compare runs.
  • Integrating the updated compare runs with other features of the fisheries management system.

Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend that the fisheries management system be updated to include the following features:

  • A list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size.
  • A flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs.
  • Updated compare runs to reflect the changes in the fisheries management system.

Q: What is the main issue with the current compare runs?

A: The main issue with the current compare runs is that they do not accurately reflect the changes in the fisheries management system. Specifically, when we change other inputs, those harvests get recalculated in the TAMM and updated in the FRAM, leading to seemingly problematic input changes that are, in fact, expected.

Q: How will the updated compare runs address this issue?

A: The updated compare runs will address this issue by using flags in the TAMM to identify which fisheries are affected by the input changes. By creating a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size, we can add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs.

Q: What is the benefit of using flags in the TAMM?

A: The benefit of using flags in the TAMM is that it will help to quickly identify which fisheries are affected by the input changes and whether they are expected or not. This will prevent unnecessary confusion and misinterpretation of input changes.

Q: How will the updated compare runs improve the accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system?

A: The updated compare runs will improve the accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system by providing a clearer and more intuitive interface. By adding a flag to the input auditing process, we can ensure that the input changes are accurately reflected in the compare runs.

Q: What is the implementation plan for the updated compare runs?

A: The implementation plan for the updated compare runs is as follows:

  1. Create a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size.
  2. Add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs.
  3. Update the compare runs to reflect the changes in the fisheries management system.
  4. Test the updated compare runs to ensure that they are working correctly.

Q: What are the future development plans for the updated compare runs?

A: The future development plans for the updated compare runs include:

  • Adding more flags to the input auditing process to indicate other types of expected input changes.
  • Creating a more detailed and user-friendly interface for the compare runs.
  • Integrating the updated compare runs with other features of the fisheries management system.

Q: What are the recommendations for implementing the updated compare runs?

A: The recommendations for implementing the updated compare runs are as follows:

  • Create a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size.
  • Add a flag to the input auditing process to indicate when we don't need to worry about changes in inputs.
  • Update the compare runs to reflect the changes in the fisheries management system.

Q: What are the benefits of implementing the updated compare runs?

A: The benefits of implementing the updated compare runs include:

  • Improved accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system.
  • Enhanced user experience through a clearer and more intuitive interface.
  • Prevention of unnecessary confusion and misinterpretation of input changes.

Q: What are the potential risks of not implementing the updated compare runs?

A: The potential risks of not implementing the updated compare runs include:

  • Continued confusion and misinterpretation of input changes.
  • Decreased accuracy and reliability of the fisheries management system.
  • Negative impact on user experience.

Q: What is the timeline for implementing the updated compare runs?

A: The timeline for implementing the updated compare runs is as follows:

  • Short-term: Create a list of fisheries that are based on terminal run size and add a flag to the input auditing process.
  • Medium-term: Update the compare runs to reflect the changes in the fisheries management system.
  • Long-term: Integrate the updated compare runs with other features of the fisheries management system.