Hello Ian,
Thanks for reaching out.

Please note that when we previously adjusted the original "No Risk" state, we received some pushback, particularly from more mature customers, as mentioned in the related post.
At this time, there are no plans to introduce a new neutral status. However, I’d recommend submitting an idea for improvement on our Product Roadmap: https://roadmap.leanix.net/tabs/1-voting/submit-idea. Your input would be greatly valued by our product team!

Best regards,
Valeriia

Hi ​@Valeriia Sappa , Does this mean that the current Missing Lifecycle Information status (yellow - see screenshot) is now obsolete as I don’t think there is any combination that results in that status? Should it be removed?

Cheers

Valeriia,

Having reviewed ​@Julia Schirmer’s initial post I think I’ve found my confusion.  

While we continue to look into provisioning default “active since” dates for reference catalog items, we also decided to set the status for the calculation of scenario where there is:

- no "vendor active since" date available, which would indicate that vendor information (via catalog) is being reviewed,

- no Vendor End-of-Life (EOL) date,

- no internal EOL date
from “missing lifecycle” back to “no risk”. This will give us enough time to consider a different status for these unknown vendor situation based on customer insights in the future

I understand ​@Helder.Luz’s (and other mature customers) issue and agree that what was decided (quote above) makes sense - because they have active date in the “regular lifecycle” field. 

However, I think an unintended behavior is: If an application’s component(s) have no dates, not even an active date, they will show as ‘no risk’. Even if the Aggregated Risk report is not really meant to address data quality, I think it obscures potential data quality issues. To me, a missing Active Date should = Missing Lifecycle Data. 

If this isn’t a bug, I would be happy to work with some stakeholders like Helder to ideate on an enhancement if makes sense. 

Hi ​@Helder.Luz , 
there is currently one scenario that leads to missing lifecycle information. 
We updated our documentation for a better illustration of the scenarios.
 

Hi ​@ian_cts,
this exactly is not considered a problem within the aggregated risk view, because the risk assessment focuses on EOL, not if there is an “active since” missing for any IT component (neither from internal nor from vendor lifecycle)
And there are plenty of scenarios, where active since on internal lifecycle is missing, especially when ITCs are created via reference catalog, discovery services etc.
And these should not interfere with the actual risk that requires some short term actions to decide on.

To validate that IT components have an “active since” and therefore trigger “maintenance activities” around this I would recommend using a classic IT component report view.

However, as mentioned above, when you share it via productboard, I’m happy to start collecting this as an insight. And we might consider introducing some informative status in the future.

Best,
Julia

​@Julia Schirmer I think I can see the difference in point of view!

• An experienced user: “this is an obsolescence risk report, so it’s intended to show risk of unaddressed end of life”
• Me, a relative neophyte: “I see applications showing ‘no risk’ and want to understand why they’re no risk so I can explain to a stakeholder if they ask me that question” 
• Me, a pedant: “Well an application without an active date is technically missing some lifecycle information, isn’t it?”

I do think I now understand how to explain this, avoid any confusion about it, and mitigate any data quality risks related to lifecycle. So, I would consider my novice question resolved!

And I will sit on my pedantic concern in lieu of anyone actually having a problem. : )

great :) 
And don’t get me wrong - I don’t disagree, that it would be nice to get this state as a separate information at some point.
Therefore, I added your feedback also to our productboard to keep track of it.