Rule ID: General feedback for US GAAP and IFRS - comment period closes September 16, 2025. || Return to summary page.
Login and use the form below to provide general feedback on the public exposure drafts for these rules.
Data Quality Rules
Approved Guidance
- Dimensional Modeling Guidance – Legal Entities & Consolidation
Approved: Nov 2018 - Investment Guidance FAQ
Approved: Sep 2022 - Reporting US GAAP Dividend Disclosures in XBRL – FAQ
Approved: Jun 2024 - Revenue Guidance
Approved: Oct 2018 || Last update: Aug 2020 - Statement of Cash Flows Guidance
Approved: Oct 2017 - Tagging Axis and Members Using the IFRS Taxonomy
Approved: Dec 2020 - Tagging Axis and Members Using the US GAAP Taxonomy Guidance
Approved: Sep 2016 || Last update: Nov 2016
Effective for the 2021 US GAAP Taxonomy, FASB issued Dimensional Modeling for Disclosures of Consolidated and Nonconsolidated Entities.
Public Exposure of Validation Rules & Guidance
- Missing Shares Issued or Authorized Facts When Shares Outstanding Reported (DQC_0212) Comments due Sep 16
- Missing Calculation Children for Key Balance Sheet Items (DQC_0213) Comments due Sep 16
- Missing Equity Concepts in Balance Sheet Calculation (DQC_0214) Comments due Sep 16
- Extension Element Name Matches US GAAP Element (DQC_0215) Comments due Sep 16
- Improper Use of Extension Geography Members on StatementGeographicalAxis (DQC_0216) Comments due Sep 16
- Improper Use of Notional Amount Concepts with InvestmentIdentifierAxis (DQC_0217) Comments due Sep 16
- Missing Value for NonInvestmentAssets LessNonInvestmentLiabilities (DQC_0219) Comments due Sep 16
- Improper Use of StatementTable in Notes Disclosures (DQC_0220) Comments due Sep 16
- Missing NumberOfReportableSegments When Segment Facts Are Reported (DQC_0221) Comments due Sep 16
- Scaling Error in EntityPublicFloat (DQC_0222) Comments due Sep 16
- Extension Leaf Items on Statement of Operating Activities or Income Statement (DQC_0223) Comments due Sep 16
Latest Rules (works with Arelle)
- Approved Rules (v27.0.6)
Test cases, documentation & scripts
(Travis CI) - Public Review Rules (v28.0.0RC5)
includes Approved Rules
Test cases, documentation & scripts
(Travis CI) - Rules Dev Team workspace
Developer Resources
- DQC Rules Validator (part of the XULE plugin for Arelle)
- XULE Editor extension for Visual Studio Code (What is XULE?)
- DQC Reference Implementation Code
Travis CI status - - Global Rule Logic
Short summary: We suggest tightening up the applicability conditions of financial statement related rules.
Medium summary: The performance hit of the DQC rules running in EDGAR is considerable, but is not warranted for validation of instances like 8-K’s (our most voluminous instance by far) that could, but normally don’t contain financial statements, or other instances that may use a handful of us-gaap axes or members but aren’t financial statements.
Long version: As we reviewed FASB’s proposed DQCRT 2026 additions to EDGAR validation, we observed that in DQC_0159.xule there is this condition
$NonFinancialStatement = set(‘PRE-14A’,’PRE 14A’,’DEF-14A’,’DEF 14A’,’DEF-14C’,’DEF 14C’,’11-K’,’11-K/A’).contains([covered @concept.local-name =’DocumentType’]);
As the set of instance types continues to expand to new submission types and exhibits, we think that set could be updated, and in any other rules where the same could be tested.
We suggest you to consider using the EDGAR Filer Manual chapter 6 “instance type” codes which distinguish between instance that could have financial statements and those which definitely do not. Since these codes are used in the EXG to define non-DQC validations, that seems like a natural fit. They are defined in terms of underlying submission types and exhibit types, and are kept up to date, as we are likely to see many more “multi-instance” EDGAR filings going forward, so our own validity rules have to be scoped that way. Consistency would be beneficial.
Note also that instance contexts may incidentally touch one or two us-gaap or srt abstract axes or members, as a result of our effort to not duplicate concepts – but the instances don’t contain financial statements, and the performance hit is actually a discouragement to that reuse effort. (Reuse of us-gaap and srt elements complicates taxonomy-specific EXG rules as recently noted with respect to the SPAC validations).
It’s possible to tighten conditions even further, if it is possible in XULE to look at the set of roleTypes declared in the DTS. If there are NO presentation relationships with a role whose link:definition text contains the string ” – Statement – ” as per EXG 10.2, then there really isn’t anything that the filer would have considered a financial statement.
Whether you want to have a general approach that each rule should positively state “only apply to instance types a, b, and c” or negatively state “does not apply to instance types x, y, and z” probably depends on the nature of the rule itself; it would be difficult to enforce a blanket style for every rule. Partitioning the rules into blocks with shared applicability conditions would be helpful.