The Most Common COREP Reporting Errors (And How to Avoid Them)

Last updated: March 2026

Why COREP Errors Matter

COREP submission day is busy, stressful, and error-prone – but overlooking COREP reporting errors carries real consequences that extend far beyond a missed deadline. You’re pulling data from multiple systems, running reconciliations, and pushing templates through validation in the final hours. When errors appear – especially late – the pressure intensifies. But bad data undermines the very purpose of prudential reporting: giving regulators and boards an accurate picture of capital, risk, and liquidity positions.

Rejected COREP submissions delay regulatory filings and signal poor data governance to your supervisor. Correction submissions (resubmissions after initial rejection) draw closer supervisory scrutiny. Repeated errors in the same framework invite on-site inspections focused on your reporting processes. More fundamentally, inaccurate COREP data leads regulators to misunderstand your institution’s true capital position and risk profile – potentially triggering unwarranted supervisory action or, conversely, missing genuine risks.

In working with European financial institutions, I’ve observed that COREP errors follow patterns. They’re not random. Most arise from the same reconciliation gaps, validation misreadings, and system configuration issues. Understanding these patterns helps you catch errors before submission and avoid costly resubmissions.

Note: The COREP reporting framework is evolving. CRR3 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1623) applies from 1 January 2025, and the EBA reporting framework version 4.2 introduces new and amended templates – including revamped operational risk templates (C 16.01 through C 16.04) and the transition to xBRL-CSV format for submissions from reference date 31 March 2026 onward. The error patterns discussed in this article remain relevant, but verify template numbers and validation rules against the current framework version applicable to your institution.

This article walks through the most common COREP reporting errors I’ve encountered in practice and the remediation techniques that work.

Validation Rule Failures: Reading the Error Messages

You submit your COREP templates and the EBA validation engine flags errors. Your first instinct is panic. Your second is usually confusion: what does this error code actually mean, and where in my massive template is the problem?

EBA validation rules are either blocking or non-blocking. Blocking rules prevent submission entirely. Non-blocking rules generate warnings but allow submission if you accept them. Both require investigation.

The validation error message typically includes:

• Rule identifier (e.g., v0306_m, v0269)
• Severity (E for error/blocking, W for warning/non-blocking)
• A description of what failed logically

The problem: error messages don’t always pinpoint the exact cell causing the issue. When you see a C 01.00 validation failure, you’re looking at the entire own funds template. The problem could be in Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) components, Additional Tier 1 (AT1), Tier 2, or the total row.

How to Debug COREP Validation Errors

My practical approach:

1. Start with the totals. Rebuild each row sum from components upward. A total of EUR 100m should equal the sum of EUR 40m + EUR 35m + EUR 25m. If it doesn’t, that’s your error.
2. Use your system’s data audit trail. Identify which cells changed most recently. When did the discrepancy appear?
3. Check sign conventions. Negative values trip up many validators. If you’re using a convention where losses are negative, ensure consistency across all templates.
4. Run the validation again after each fix. Confirm the specific error is resolved and no new errors appear.

Common Blocking Validation Failures

These validation errors prevent submission entirely and must be fixed:

Own funds total mismatches (C 01.00):

• Individual CET1, AT1, or Tier 2 components don’t sum correctly
• Often caused by formula errors after spreadsheet updates
• Rounding in intermediate steps creates variance

Fix: Rebuild totals from raw GL figures, not intermediate calculations. Preserve precision until final rounding.

Credit risk total exposures (C 07.00 and C 08.xx):

• Template totals for exposure classes don’t match detailed line-item rolls
• Usually appears when you’ve added or removed counterparties but haven’t updated subtotals

Fix: Use formulas that automatically update when you add/remove rows. Don’t hard-code sums.

Leverage ratio denominator errors (C 43.00, C 47.00):

• Total assets, off-balance sheet items, or derivative adjustments create an invalid denominator
• Frequently occurs when you’ve changed scope of consolidation or added new ledger accounts mid-period

Fix: Rebuild the denominator from scratch each quarter. Don’t carry forward prior-quarter structure.

Keep your validation rulebook open during submission. When an error appears, find the specific rule number in the EBA rulebook and read it literally. Regulators wrote these rules deliberately. The logic inside tells you exactly what the system is checking.

Own Funds Reconciliation: The C 01.00 Bridge to Accounting

Your COREP C 01.00 template shows total own funds of EUR 150 million. Your balance sheet shows EUR 148 million. The EUR 2 million discrepancy is wrong, and you’re digging.

Own funds reconciliation failures happen because COREP template definitions don’t always align perfectly with accounting classifications. You need to bridge the gap intentionally and document it.

Building the Own Funds Reconciliation

Start by building a detailed reconciliation in a separate workbook. Begin with your audited balance sheet equity. Then adjust for:

Regulatory adjustments:

• Prudential filters that add or subtract items from accounting equity
• Goodwill deductions (must be removed from CET1)
• Deferred tax asset restrictions (certain DTAs must be deducted)
• Significant investments in insurance entities (must be deducted from CET1 above thresholds)
• Shortfall of provisions over expected losses (must be deducted)

Scope timing:

• Your accounting close might use different consolidation dates than your prudential scope
• Intra-group dividends declared but not yet paid create timing differences
• Goodwill arising from acquisitions in the month might be included in accounting but excluded from prudential own funds

Classification differences:

• Items classified as equity under IFRS might be AT1 or Tier 2 under CRR. The classic example: contingent convertible bonds (CoCos) are structured as AT1 capital instruments under CRR, but their accounting classification under IFRS depends on their specific contractual terms – they may be classified as equity or as a liability. This creates a divergence between your IFRS balance sheet and your COREP own funds template.
• Subordinated debt instruments may qualify as Tier 2 capital under CRR but appear purely as liabilities in your financial statements

Fair value adjustments:

• Own funds sometimes require adjustments for unrealized gains and losses that your balance sheet processed differently
• Accumulated other comprehensive income items might be included in balance sheet equity but subject to prudential filters in own funds

Building this reconciliation takes effort upfront but saves hours during submission. Document every adjustment with:

• GL account code
• COREP line reference
• Business reason
• Amount (in reporting currency)

When auditors ask or supervisors query the data, you can explain precisely why COREP differs from the financial statements.

One practical tip: assign a dedicated owner to this reconciliation. One person understands the full chain of logic. When you rotate between team members, the reconciliation logic often breaks or gaps appear.

Capital Ratio Calculation Mistakes: C 03.00 Inconsistencies

Your C 03.00 capital ratio template shows a CET1 ratio of 12.5%. But when you divide CET1 capital (from C 01.00) by risk-weighted assets (from C 02.00), you get 12.3%. The 20 basis point discrepancy shouldn’t exist.

Sources of Capital Ratio Errors

Capital ratio errors usually fall into two categories: mismatched denominators and rounding cascades.

Mismatched denominators occur when different templates use different RWA figures. Your C 02.00 RWA roll might include certain RWA add-ons (credit valuation adjustment, operational risk) that your C 03.00 denominator excludes. Or your leverage ratio templates might calculate total exposure differently than credit risk RWA.

Fixing Mismatched Denominators

Create a single “RWA source of truth” workbook that feeds all downstream calculations. Your C 02.00 should be the authoritative RWA. Everything else pulls from there. This eliminates versions where one template updates and another doesn’t.

Rounding Cascade Errors

Rounding cascades happen when intermediate calculations round at each step. If your system rounds CET1, AT1, and Tier 2 to the nearest thousand, then adds those rounded figures, the total own funds might differ from a direct accounting roll by rounding variance alone. Multiply that across your ratio calculations and you’ve created unexplained 1-2 basis point discrepancies.

Solve rounding cascades by performing calculations at full precision internally, then rounding only for final output. Your submission templates should show rounded figures, but your reconciliation workbooks should preserve precision.

Example: Don’t calculate CET1 as 40.123456m, round to 40.123m, then calculate ratio. Instead, calculate at full precision (40.123456m) and round only the final ratio.

Credit Risk Template Errors: Exposure Class Misclassification

Your credit risk templates (C 07.00 for standardized approach, C 08.01/C 08.02 for IRB) classify counterparties into exposure classes: central governments, institutions, corporates, retail, equity, etc. The classification drives RWA calculation. Misclassification directly distorts capital ratios.

I’ve seen three recurring patterns:

Misclassified Sovereigns

A corporate borrower is classified as “corporate” rather than “central government” exposure because the borrowing entity is privately owned. But if it’s ultimately guaranteed by a sovereign government under a specific program, it might qualify for sovereign risk weighting. The CRR rules (particularly Articles 112-134) and your institution’s implementation details determine this. When in doubt, the conservative approach is to use the higher risk weight.

Institutional Counterparty Scope Creep

Insurance companies can be tricky. Are they regulated financial institutions (lower risk weight) or non-financial corporates (higher weight)? Your institution likely maintains a list of approved counterparties with their assigned exposure class. When you onboard new counterparties or receive updated counterparty data, manually verify the classification against this list. Don’t assume your system classified them correctly based on entity type alone.

Retail Portfolio Misclassification

Retail exposure class under the standardized approach has specific criteria under CRR Article 123:

• The exposure must be to a natural person or to a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
• The total amount owed by the obligor to the institution must not exceed EUR 1 million
• The exposure is one of a significant number of exposures with similar characteristics

If one retail customer’s total exposure across products exceeds the threshold, that relationship should migrate to corporate, not stay in retail. Systems sometimes miss this because they evaluate products in silos.

Fixing Exposure Class Errors

Maintain an up-to-date counterparty exposure class master list. Review it quarterly. When you notice exposures jumping between classes, investigate before submission. Document your classification rationale with reference to CRR articles and EBA guidelines.

Credit Risk RWA Calculation Errors

Once exposures are classified, RWA calculation applies risk weights to exposures. An error here multiplies across your entire capital ratio.

Common RWA Calculation Errors

PD/LGD inputs from wrong date:

Your IRB approach might use most recent PD/LGD estimates, but your submission should use quarter-end estimates. If your system pulled estimates from the 20th of the month instead of the last business day, your RWA will be off.

Fix: Lock your PD/LGD date at quarter-end. Re-run RWA calculations with this fixed date after the quarter closes.

Collateral haircuts inconsistently applied:

If you hold collateral against a corporate exposure, you reduce the exposure amount by the haircut. Some teams apply haircuts; others forget them. This inconsistency creates unexplained RWA variance.

Fix: Build a collateral schedule that links every hedged exposure to its haircut and haircut methodology. Tie this schedule directly to your RWA calculation.

Counterparty credit risk (CCR) add-on miscalculation:

If you use the standardized approach for CCR, add-ons for netting sets and wrong-way risk apply specific formulas. Errors in intermediate factors cascade into total CCR RWA.

Fix: Implement a separate CCR calculation workbook. For a sample of large exposures, manually verify the formula application against CRR Part Three, Title II, Chapter 6.

Validating RWA Accuracy

Prevent errors by implementing a quarterly RWA reconciliation. Recalculate RWA for a sample of 5-10 large exposures manually using the regulatory formula. Compare your manual calculation to the system output. When they differ, investigate and resolve before submission.

Large Exposure Errors: Connected Client Grouping and Exemptions

Templates C 26.00 through C 29.00 report your large exposures. The definition of “connected clients” and exemptions applied directly affects which exposures you report and how you calculate large exposure limits.

Common Large Exposure Mistakes

Connected client grouping mistakes happen because connections are often documented outside your core systems. A corporate parent, its subsidiaries, and affiliated companies form a client group. You must aggregate their exposures. But identifying all connections requires manual verification.

I’ve observed institutions that:

• Miss indirect ownership connections (A owns B, B owns C, so A and C are connected)
• Fail to update connected client lists when shareholder structures change
• Apply exemptions inconsistently (some large exposures exempt due to guarantees, others not)

Fixing Large Exposure Errors

Maintain an authoritative large exposures client group register. Update it at least quarterly. Document every connection with:

• Business relationship description
• Legal reference (shareholding agreement, guarantee, etc.)
• Effective date of connection
• Relevant exemption (if any) with CRR article reference

When you submit C 26.00-C 29.00, trace each large exposure back to this register. Regulators sometimes challenge large exposure calculations, so documentation is your defense.

Leverage Ratio Issues: SFT and Conversion Factors

The leverage ratio templates calculate a denominator that includes on-balance sheet assets plus off-balance sheet exposures. Securities financing transaction (SFT) exposures and derivative add-ons are frequent error sources.

SFT Exposure Calculation

SFT exposure calculation requires applying specific formulas for:

• Repos and reverse repos
• Securities borrowing and lending

If your system doesn’t automatically categorize SFTs correctly, you’ll misclassify them. A reverse repo might be coded as a regular investment instead of a financing transaction, causing the exposure to flow into total assets at notional value rather than as an SFT-adjusted amount.

Fix these errors by:

1. Validating SFT categorization with your treasury team. Ensure every SFT is coded to the correct transaction type in your system.
2. Creating a separate off-balance sheet register that lists every commitment with its conversion factor and regulatory basis.
3. Recalculating leverage ratio denominator components manually for a sample population before submission.

Off-Balance Sheet Conversion Factors

Off-balance sheet conversion factors convert notional or committed amounts to exposure at default (EAD) equivalent. Credit commitments that aren’t drawn use a conversion factor (ranging from 0% to 100% depending on type and whether the commitment is unconditionally cancellable). If your system doesn’t apply these conversion factors correctly, you’ll misstate your leverage ratio denominator.

Fix: Build a conversion factor matrix. For every commitment type, document the applicable factor and its regulatory reference (e.g., CRR Article 111 for standardized approach, or the relevant IRB articles). Train your data entry team on this matrix.

Liquidity Template Errors: LCR Asset Classification

Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) templates classify assets and calculate stressed outflows. The LCR requirements are set out in the LCR Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, not in the CRR itself. Classification errors directly distort your LCR.

Asset Classification Mistakes

Level 1 assets (most liquid) include cash, central bank reserves, and certain sovereign securities. Level 2A assets include government securities and covered bonds meeting specific criteria. Level 2B assets are other marketable securities (certain corporate bonds, equity shares, RMBS) subject to additional haircuts and caps. If your system misclassifies a corporate bond as Level 2A when it should be Level 2B, you overstate your liquid asset pool.

Specific LCR classification mistakes I’ve encountered:

Government securities with foreign guarantees:

A security issued by a private entity but guaranteed by a foreign government sometimes gets classified as sovereign (Level 1) instead of corporate (Level 2B). The guarantee type, issuer jurisdiction, and the specific criteria in Articles 10-13 of the Delegated Regulation matter.

Haircut application inconsistency:

Level 2A assets carry a minimum 15% haircut; Level 2B assets carry haircuts ranging from 25% to 50% depending on the asset type (e.g., 50% for equity, 25% for certain corporate bonds). If you apply the wrong haircut to an asset class, you misstate available liquid assets.

Outflow Assumption Errors

LCR outflow rates are often a source of confusion. The key distinctions:

Retail deposits: Stable retail deposits attract a 5% outflow rate; other (less stable) retail deposits attract a 10% rate. The stability assessment depends on deposit insurance coverage and the nature of the customer relationship.

Operational deposits from non-financial corporates: These attract a 25% outflow rate under Article 27 of the Delegated Regulation, provided they meet the operational relationship criteria. Non-operational wholesale deposits from corporates typically attract a 40% outflow rate (or 20% for insured portions).

Wholesale and interbank funding: Unsecured wholesale funding from financial institutions generally attracts a 100% outflow rate. This is the category where the 100% rate applies – not to “unstable retail deposits” as is sometimes assumed.

Getting these distinctions wrong systematically overstates or understates your LCR. Document your outflow rate methodology with specific article references from the Delegated Regulation.

Preventing LCR Errors

Document your asset classification methodology in writing. When you classify an asset type, record:

• Regulatory basis (Delegated Regulation article reference)
• Threshold criteria met
• Haircut applied
• Effective date

Train your team on these criteria quarterly. When new asset types appear, classify them explicitly before adding to templates.

Data Quality Issues: Sign Conventions, Currency, and Rounding

Sometimes COREP errors aren’t about calculation logic. They’re about data quality basics.

Sign Convention Issues

COREP templates use specific sign conventions. Gains are typically positive, losses negative. But some systems default to opposite conventions. When you pull data from legacy systems or merge datasets, sign conventions often flip.

A hedging loss that appears as negative in one system might be positive in another. Always verify your sign conventions match the template definitions before submission. Build a sign convention matrix and stick to it consistently.

Currency Conversion Errors

If you operate across multiple currencies, conversion to the reporting currency is necessary. But conversion done at the wrong exchange rate (spot vs. month-end vs. average) creates discrepancies. Document the rate date and source for every currency conversion. If a supervisor asks why your euro exposure changed, you’ll have the answer.

Rounding Applied at Wrong Steps

As mentioned earlier, rounding at intermediate steps creates cascades. Your general rule: don’t round until the very last step. Let systems store full precision internally.

Blank Cells vs. Zeros

In some templates, a blank cell means “no data” while a zero means “explicitly zero amount.” Your system must distinguish between them. If your export routine converts blanks to zeros, downstream validation might fail.

Fix: Configure your export routine to preserve blanks as blanks. Only convert to zero where the business logic requires it.

Format Transition: xBRL-CSV

For institutions submitting COREP from reference date 31 March 2026 onward, the EBA requires submissions in xBRL-CSV format rather than the previous XBRL format. This transition introduces its own category of errors:

• Data mapping from internal systems to the new CSV structure may produce different results than the prior XBRL mapping
• Validation rules may behave differently in the new format
• Testing against the new format should be completed before your first live submission

If you haven’t already tested your xBRL-CSV submission pipeline, do so immediately. The transition is not optional.

Resubmission Pitfalls and Version Control

You’ve submitted, received an error from the regulator, and now you’re resubmitting. Resubmissions introduce distinct risks.

Risk 1: Reintroducing Old Errors

When you correct one error but reintroduce an old one, reputational damage follows. When you correct C 01.00 own funds because you found a reconciliation error, make sure you didn’t accidentally roll back C 02.00 to an older version in the process.

Risk 2: Unexplained Changes Raise Questions

Your submission is timestamped. If you submit version 1.0 on day 1, then resubmit version 2.0 on day 3, both are on record. The regulator sees the progression. If the changes seem arbitrary or unexplained, it raises questions about data governance.

Before resubmitting, document why each cell changed. Prepare a brief reconciliation:

• What was in version 1.0
• What’s in version 2.0
• Why the change

Risk 3: Stale Supporting Documentation

You don’t update your documentation and reconciliation files when you submit a corrected template. If you keep separate files – reconciliation workbooks, validation rule trackers, RWA calculations – make sure you update all of them when you submit a corrected version. Years later, an auditor or regulator might ask for supporting documentation. If your files don’t match your submission, you look unprepared.

Building Your Pre-Submission Checklist

The best defense against COREP errors is a pre-submission checklist that catches issues before they reach the validator.

Pre-Submission Quality Control Steps

Your checklist should include:

1. Own funds reconciliation complete and signed off: CET1, AT1, and Tier 2 totals in C 01.00 match your accounting records after regulatory adjustments. A named person has reviewed and approved this.
2. RWA recalculation sample: You’ve manually recalculated RWA for 5-10 of your largest exposures. System RWA matches manual calculation.
3. Capital ratios sensibility check: Your CET1, Tier 1, and Total Capital ratios make intuitive sense given your business model and market conditions. If Tier 1 ratio drops 200 basis points quarter-over-quarter with no business change, investigate.
4. Validation error scan: You’ve run all validation rules. Resolved blocking errors. Reviewed non-blocking warnings and documented why you accept them.
5. Counterparty exposure class verification: You’ve spot-checked 10 counterparties to confirm exposure class assignments are correct. Classifications match CRR rules and your institution’s policy.
6. Large exposure connected client list current: Connected client groupings reflect current ownership structures and guarantees. List is dated and approved.
7. Leverage ratio denominator recalculation: You’ve rebuilt the leverage ratio denominator from raw components. Confirm total exposure measure calculation.
8. LCR asset classification review: You’ve spot-checked 10 assets across liquidity classes. Confirm classification matches Delegated Regulation criteria.
9. Sign conventions verified: You’ve confirmed that gains appear as positive, losses as negative (or your institution’s consistent convention). All templates follow the same convention.
10. Currency conversion rates documented: Any multi-currency data includes conversion rate date and source. Rates are consistent across templates.
11. Resubmission changes documented: If resubmitting, you have a clear changelog explaining what changed in each cell and why.
12. Data timestamp verification: All source data is quarter-end or the declared period end. No mid-period data mixed in.
13. Submission format verified: Your file is in the correct format (xBRL-CSV for reference dates from 31 March 2026 onward). You’ve validated against the current schema version.

This checklist takes two hours to work through on submission day. It prevents the vast majority of errors that would otherwise require correction submissions.

Coming Soon: Template-by-Template Deep Dives

We’re building detailed, template-level guides for each reporting framework covered on RegReportingDesk. Whether you need a field-by-field walkthrough of specific COREP templates, validation rule analysis, or reporting process flows, these guides are on the way. Bookmark this page and check back soon.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most common COREP reporting error?

Own funds reconciliation failures are the most common error I see. Institutions fail to build a clear bridge between accounting equity and COREP own funds, leading to discrepancies that fail validation. Build this bridge early and maintain it quarterly.

How do I fix a COREP validation error that references a specific rule number?

Find the rule number in the EBA validation rulebook (published on the EBA website alongside the reporting framework). Read the rule literally. The logic describes exactly what the system is checking. Most rules are mathematical (totals must equal components). Fix the underlying data issue, not the symptoms.

Can I submit COREP with non-blocking validation warnings?

Yes, technically. But don’t ignore them. Investigate every warning. Most indicate genuine data issues. If you accept a warning without understanding it, you’re risking incorrect reporting. Document your rationale for each accepted warning.

What if I discover an error after I’ve submitted COREP?

Contact your supervisor and ask about resubmission procedures. Some supervisors allow corrections within a short window (days). Others require you to file a corrected submission immediately. Be proactive – don’t wait for the supervisor to discover the error.

How does the xBRL-CSV format transition affect COREP submissions?

From reference date 31 March 2026, all COREP submissions must use xBRL-CSV format. This replaces the previous XBRL format. Test your submission pipeline against the new format before your first live filing. Common issues include data mapping differences, encoding changes, and validation rule behavior differences.

Key Takeaways

• Validation errors rarely appear without root cause. When an error message flags C 01.00, don’t just adjust numbers – find the reconciliation gap that caused the error.
• Own funds and RWA are your foundation. If these don’t reconcile precisely to accounting records and system calculations, every downstream ratio is suspect.
• Counterparty classification drives RWA. Misclassified exposures (sovereign vs. corporate, retail vs. corporate, institution vs. non-institution) directly distort capital positions.
• Large exposures and connected client grouping require manual governance. Your systems can’t automatically identify all connections. Maintain an authoritative register updated quarterly.
• Liquidity template errors concentrate in asset classification and outflow assumptions. Reference the LCR Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 directly – don’t rely on summaries. Retail deposit outflow rates (5%/10%) are different from corporate/wholesale rates (25%/40%/100%).
• Data quality basics catch errors early. Sign conventions, currency conversion, rounding, and blank vs. zero handling are easy to overlook but create cascading errors.
• The xBRL-CSV format transition requires testing. Don’t assume your old XBRL pipeline works unchanged. Test before your first live submission.
• Resubmission requires discipline. Document every change. Ensure all supporting files are updated. Track version history.
• Checklists work. A structured pre-submission review catches the vast majority of errors before the validator sees them.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.

Sources and References

• EBA Reporting Framework 4.2 – Current reporting framework including templates, validation rules, and technical specifications https://www.eba.europa.eu/risk-and-data-analysis/reporting-frameworks/reporting-framework-42
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting including COREP template instructions and filing rules https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0451
• Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) – Capital Requirements Regulation – substantive rules underlying COREP calculations (as amended by CRR3, Regulation (EU) 2024/1623) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0575
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 – LCR Delegated Regulation specifying liquidity coverage requirements, asset classifications, and outflow rates https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R0061
• EBA Single Rulebook Q&A – Q&A tool addressing practical COREP filing questions and validation rule interpretation https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa
• EBA Report on the Quality of Supervisory Data – EBA assessment of data quality issues in supervisory reporting across the EU https://www.eba.europa.eu/activities/single-rulebook/regulatory-activities/supervisory-reporting