We all recently discussed changes we'd like to see/demand in the new Adobe product that will replace PureEdge.   But has PureEdge caused agency systems to make mistakes?

While the NIH Commons still stands near the top of agency-controlled eRA grant management tools (most don't have any), there seems to be a continuing problem with the reporting of proposal errors by Commons:  not every error is detected and/or reported at the initial scan.  Example: submission comes back with single error of a single Word doc attachment.  Corrected and resubmitted proposal comes back with a new error for Intro longer than 1 page (R21).  Note: the Intro was NOT the source of the original non-pdf problem.

Does anyone know if NIH is dealing with this?  Is it PureEdge related?

Charlie

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================