O Some more benefits to this solution could be:
 Easier to manage and for the performance assurance team to monitor activity in the market through increased utilisation of data driven insights.
O Some drawbacks could be:
 The costs are currently not defined, therefore it’s possible that this is not cost-beneficial.
 This solution is high impact and will take time to implement. As an interim measure instead of standardising to a single interface, we could make sure that all industry participants know which interfaces are used by which Party. This would be achieved by creating a communication register and adding an obligation to the Code that Parties must keep this information up to date which is held on the REC Portal. The register would be simple and include:
• Party Name
• Company Registration Number
• Operational Contact
• Method of sending various flows (IX, DTN, Email).
 We are aware that some organisations currently maintain similar records, so this would simplify and consolidate an existing process, so it can be used by all.
O An alternative view could be that the MEM updates the CDSP or GES by a specific route (single defined interface). This would ensure that the REC would not impact with commercial relationships between suppliers and MEMs. For this to happen, there could be an addition to the MEMs accreditation that they must have the capacity to communicate with GES and/or CDSP via a particular mechanism in order to operate in the market.