Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017.

Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017

MTAC Visibility and Service Measurement
First-Class Mail Letters

First-Class Mail® (Letters) Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend

First-Class Mail® (Letters) Reasons why mail is not in measurement
In December 2016, 29% of Full-Service First-Class Letters were excluded from measurement Attributed to Mailers 14.75% Attributed to USPS / Unknown 85.25% Exclusion Reason % of Excluded % of Total* No Start-the-Clock 39.25% 12.77% Long Haul 35.03% 11.40% Incorrect Entry Facility 3.67% 1.20% Other 22.05% 7.17% The pie chart depicts the breakdown of Full Service mail volume in measurement and not in measurement for the specified month. Pieces in Measurement: % of total Full Service mail that is in measurement Exclusion reasons: % of each of the top reasons why Full Service mail is not in measurement. Attributed to Mailers: % of exclusions that can definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. Unable to attribute to Mailers: % of exclusions that cannot definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. The exclusion breakdown table depicts the top reasons for Full Service Mail volume to not be in measurement along with the associated volume %. Reason: A short description of the reason why mail is excluded % of Excluded: % of the total excluded mail volume each reason constitutes % of Total: % of the total mail volume each reason constitutes * Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result, the sum of individual exclusion percentages (33%) is greater than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (29%)

First-Class Mail® (Letters) Exclusion Reduction Plan
No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Incorrect Entry Facility Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility) Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Possible site visits Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Long Haul Exclusion No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Incorrect Entry Facility Work with EAMA team Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS transported volume Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA application Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev team) Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations Provide an overview of EAMA Provide SOP Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Incorrect Entry Facility Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

First-Class Mail Flats

First-Class Mail® (Flats) Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend

First-Class Mail® (Flats) Reasons why mail is not in measurement
In December 2016, 32% of Full-Service First-Class Flats were excluded from measurement Attributed to Mailers 14.39% Attributed to USPS / Unknown 85.61% Exclusion Reason % of Excluded % of Total* No Start-the-Clock 40.74% 15.61% Long Haul 7.06% 2.71% Non-Unique IMb 8.80% 3.37% Other 43.40% 16.64% The pie chart depicts the breakdown of Full Service mail volume in measurement and not in measurement for the specified month. Pieces in Measurement: % of total Full Service mail that is in measurement Exclusion reasons: % of each of the top reasons why Full Service mail is not in measurement. Attributed to Mailers: % of exclusions that can definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. Unable to attribute to Mailers: % of exclusions that cannot definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. The exclusion breakdown table depicts the top reasons for Full Service Mail volume to not be in measurement along with the associated volume %. Reason: A short description of the reason why mail is excluded % of Excluded: % of the total excluded mail volume each reason constitutes % of Total: % of the total mail volume each reason constitutes * Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result, the sum of individual exclusion percentages (38%) is greater than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (32%)

First-Class Mail® (Flats) Exclusion Reduction Plan
No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Non-Unique IMb Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility) Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Possible site visits Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Long Haul Exclusion No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Non-Unique IMb Work with EAMA team Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS transported volume Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA application Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev team) Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations Provide an overview of EAMA Provide SOP Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Non-Unique IMb Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Full Service – Free Visibility
Data from to Full Service Customers Only 3,600,000 8,083,000 Entered at USPS SV Unload Scan Enroute Depart Scan for Containers and Trays 10,359,000 87,188,000 33 Billion This slide depicts the counts of Visibility events provisioned for the specified scan date range. (as of January 1, 2017) Enroute Arrive Container and Tray Scans Enroute Tray Scans Piece level automation scans New Visibility for Mailers All IMb™ Users

Periodicals Flats

Periodicals Last Mile Impact Trend
The Last Mile Impact trend graph shows the national quarter-to-date last mile impact for Periodicals Destination Entry and Origin Entry mail. Each data point reflects the official quarter-to-date last mile impact results reported; for example, this week’s chart shows this week’s QTD last mile impact result, as well as the QTD last mile impact score that was officially reported last week. Last Mile Impact: Net reduction in service performance after combining Processing performance with Last Mile performance. Note: Results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks’ results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO) approach. 16

Periodicals (Flats) Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend

Periodicals (Flats) Reasons why mail is not in measurement
In December 2016, 32% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from measurement Attributed to Mailers 19.81% Attributed to USPS / Unknown 80.19% Exclusion Reason % of Excluded % of Total* No Start-the-Clock 11.88% 4.38% Long Haul 4.11% 1.51% Inaccurate Scheduled Ship Date 4.48% 1.65% Other 79.53% 29.31% The pie chart depicts the breakdown of Full Service mail volume in measurement and not in measurement for the specified month. Pieces in Measurement: % of total Full Service mail that is in measurement Exclusion reasons: % of each of the top reasons why Full Service mail is not in measurement. Attributed to Mailers: % of exclusions that can definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. Unable to attribute to Mailers: % of exclusions that cannot definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. The exclusion breakdown table depicts the top reasons for Full Service Mail volume to not be in measurement along with the associated volume %. Reason: A short description of the reason why mail is excluded % of Excluded: % of the total excluded mail volume each reason constitutes % of Total: % of the total mail volume each reason constitutes * Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result, the sum of individual exclusion percentages (37%) is greater than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (32%)

Periodicals (Flats) Exclusion Reduction Plan
No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Inaccurate Scheduled Ship Date Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility) Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Possible site visits Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Long Haul Exclusion No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Inaccurate Scheduled Ship Date Work with EAMA team Ingest the scan data to IV SPM database Finalize the CET business rules for long haul transportation Enhance the STC business rules for DMU verified USPS transported volume Identify top opportunities DMU locations to pilot EAMA application Identify stakeholders (Mailer, Field Marketing, EAMA Dev team) Engage through stakeholders the top opportunity locations Provide an overview of EAMA Provide SOP Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

No Start-the-Clock Long Haul Inaccurate Scheduled Ship Date Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Marketing Mail Letters

Marketing Mail* (Letters) Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®.

Marketing Mail* (Letters) Reasons why mail is not in measurement
In December 2016, 20% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from measurement Attributed to Mailers 24.02% Attributed to USPS / Unknown 75.98% Exclusion Reason % of Excluded % of Total* No Start-the-Clock 50.32% 11.17% Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount (FAST MDF) 9.89% 2.20% Non-Unique IMb 2.97% 0.66% Other 36.82% 8.17% The pie chart depicts the breakdown of Full Service mail volume in measurement and not in measurement for the specified month. Pieces in Measurement: % of total Full Service mail that is in measurement Exclusion reasons: % of each of the top reasons why Full Service mail is not in measurement. Attributed to Mailers: % of exclusions that can definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. Unable to attribute to Mailers: % of exclusions that cannot definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. The exclusion breakdown table depicts the top reasons for Full Service Mail volume to not be in measurement along with the associated volume %. Reason: A short description of the reason why mail is excluded % of Excluded: % of the total excluded mail volume each reason constitutes % of Total: % of the total mail volume each reason constitutes * Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result, the sum of individual exclusion percentages (22%) is greater than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (20%)

Marketing Mail (Letters) Exclusion Reduction Plan
No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Non-Unique IMb Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility) Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Possible site visits Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Long Haul Exclusion No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Non-Unique IMb Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Non-Unique IMb Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Marketing Mail Flats

Marketing Mail* (Flats) Full Service Volume In Measurement Trend
Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®.

Marketing Mail* (Flats) Reasons why mail is not in measurement
In December 2016, 26% of Full-Service Periodicals Flats were excluded from measurement Attributed to Mailers 30.88% Attributed to USPS / Unknown 69.12% Exclusion Reason % of Excluded % of Total* No Start-the-Clock 15.43% 4.79% Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount (FAST MDF) 10.50% 3.26% Invalid Container Level for Entry 8.45% 2.62% Other 65.62% 20.37% The pie chart depicts the breakdown of Full Service mail volume in measurement and not in measurement for the specified month. Pieces in Measurement: % of total Full Service mail that is in measurement Exclusion reasons: % of each of the top reasons why Full Service mail is not in measurement. Attributed to Mailers: % of exclusions that can definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. Unable to attribute to Mailers: % of exclusions that cannot definitively be attributed to Mailer issues. The exclusion breakdown table depicts the top reasons for Full Service Mail volume to not be in measurement along with the associated volume %. Reason: A short description of the reason why mail is excluded % of Excluded: % of the total excluded mail volume each reason constitutes % of Total: % of the total mail volume each reason constitutes * Mail can be excluded due to more than one reason. As a result, the sum of individual exclusion percentages (31%) is greater than the overall percentage of mail not in measurement (26%)

Marketing Mail (Flats) Exclusion Reduction Plan
No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Invalid Container Level for Entry Identify top opportunities (Mailer/Facility) Identify stakeholders (HQ Operations, Field Operations/Marketing, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity locations to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Possible site visits Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer/facility to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Long Haul Exclusion No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Invalid Container Level for Entry Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

No Start-the-Clock Invalid Entry Point for Entry Discount Invalid Container Level for Entry Identify top opportunities (Mailer) Identify stakeholders (Field Marketing/BSN, Mail Entry Payment Tech) Engage the top opportunity mailers to gauge and identify root causes Conduct interviews Develop root cause document and provide path to resolution Work with mailer to resolve root causes Monitor weekly performance Trend out the weekly performance Meet with stakeholders weekly to report out results

Marketing Mail* (Flats) Last Mile Impact Trend
The Last Mile Impact trend graph shows the national quarter-to-date last mile impact for Standard Mail Flats Destination Entry and Origin Entry mail. Each data point reflects the official quarter-to-date last mile impact results reported; for example, this week’s chart shows this week’s QTD last mile impact result, as well as the QTD last mile impact score that was officially reported last week. Last Mile Impact: Net reduction in service performance after combining Processing performance with Last Mile performance. Note: Results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks’ results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO) approach. Note: Prior to FY17 Q2, Marketing Mail was referred to as Standard Mail®. 35

Bundle Visibility

Full-Service Bundle Visibility
P&DC Entry/Container Unload Scan (SV/IMDAS) Container Load Scan (SV) APPS/APBS Bundle to Container SV Assign/Close Scans for Nesting Data IV Mailer Visibility Delivery Unit Arrived at Unit (IMDAS) Container Distributed (IMDAS) Out for Delivery Curtailed Inventory (IMDAS) Delivered (Logical based on GPS)

Visibility Improvement
Piece, Bundle, and Container IMb Tracing Improved operational compliance 82% 45% Scans leveraged to provide comprehensive visibility Double digit visibility increase in IMb Tracing events Identified opportunities for improved operational compliance to increase visibility Pilot mailer visibility increased from 45% to 82%!

Full-Service Bundle Visibility
P&DC Entry/Container Unload Scan (SV/IMDAS) Container Load Scan (SV) IV Release 2.1 Bundle Visibility Enhancements: Logical Out for Delivery event (OpCode 516) for bundles Assumed Logical Out for Delivery event (OpCode 516) for bundle pieces Logical Delivery event (OpCode 517) for bundle pieces that received Logical Out for Delivery event APPS/APBS Bundle to Container SV Assign/Close Scans for Nesting Data IV Mailer Visibility a, b c Delivery Unit Arrived at Unit (IMDAS) Container Distributed (IMDAS) Out for Delivery Curtailed Inventory (IMDAS) Delivered (Logical based on GPS)

Periodicals and News - Manual Sortation Visibility
Proof Of Concept

Periodicals and News Background
Purpose Improve visibility of Full Service newspapers worked in manual operations Solution Vetted collaboratively with Network Operations - OPERATIONS INTEGRATION & SUPPORT Developed process that utilizes SV & IMD devices to scan containers, tubs, and bundles at manual bullpens, assuming: Full Service Mailings Acceptance Process Readable Barcodes SV Load & Unload Scans Proof-Of-Concept initially utilized IMD (Delivery Unit) scanning solution understood to be non-optimal but was first-to-market

Periodicals and News Proof-of-Concept
Delivery Unit Locale Mail (No Plant Dist.) P&DC Main News Belt Container Assign Scan (SV) Container Close Scan (SV) Distributed (IMD) Secondary Bullpen 43 Or Wall Barcode Scan (IMD) Container Distributed Scan (IMD) Bundle Enroute Scan (IMD) Wall Barcode Scan (IMD) Tub Distributed Scan (IMD) Wall Barcode Scan (IMD) Wall Barcode Scan (IMD) Acceptance Or Unload (IMD) Postal One Rec. 99S Load Scan (IMD) Trailer Depart (IMD) Tub Unload (IMD) Trailer Arrive (SV) Container Unload Scan (SV) Container Stage Scan (SV) Container Load Scan (SV) Trailer Depart (SV) Acceptance at DU to Arrival at News Belt Distributed to Close 99H Close to Distributed Proof of Concept Successful test even though assumptions did not prove out (Containerization, readability, turn around flows). Ability to identify mail not processed on Day 0. Calculated Cycle Times. Creating a Processed-by-Cutoff Time Exception Report. Next Steps Assess and test technology alternatives – currently fielded technology (SV, Manual Scanning Appliance). Develop, choose alternative, pilot and field solution Manual casing – visibility solution development Address lessons learned from initial Proof-Of-Concept test Full Service Compliance and Verification – Readability, Containerization, Labeling, mail/labels matching eDoc Flow to local mail – may not get processed in plant Assess longer term test technology alternatives – Lapel-style scanners, Google Glass, mobile apps. 99P Close to Container Load & Depart Scan Not Captured Graphic depicts scan events at all possible handoffs

Intelligent Mail® Package Barcode Compliance

IMpb Compliance Assessments
*July 2017 thresholds agreed upon with MTAC WG #178 Measuring now until July 2017 Shipping Services File Address or 11-digit DPV

IMpb Compliance Report Codes
IMpb Compliance Codes Simplify IMpb Compliance Categories to Quality Metrics Only Release Date: July,2017 Original IMpb Compliance Report Codes: SF/UN Report Code DZ Report Code BF Report Code SHIPPING SERVICES FILE VERSION 1.(x) NOT VALID & NO SHIPPING SERVICES FILE BARCODE FORMAT - NOT IMpb DEST DEL ADDR OR 11 DIGIT DESTINATION ZIP CODE NOT INCLUDED IMpb Quality Compliance Report Codes: MQ Report Code BQ Report Code AQ Report Code MQ - Mail Piece has Poor Manifest Data Quality BQ - Mail Piece has Poor Barcode Quality AQ - Mail Piece has Poor Address Quality February 9, 2017

IMpb Compliance Performance Current Categories
January 2017 IMpb Metrics 95% 98% 91% Product % IMPB Barcode Threshold % Address and/or 11 Digit ZIP Code Threshold % SSF or Higher Threshold 95% 98% 91% Parcel Select Lightweight (LW) 99.99% 98.66% 97.87% Parcel Select (PS) 99.94% 98.96% 98.73% First-Class (FC) 99.52% 99.57% 98.71% Priority Mail (PM) 98.88% 98.69% 98.44% Bound Printed Matter (BB) 99.95% 96.30% 90.87% Media Mail (BS) 99.82% 99.75% 98.35% Standard Mail Marketing (S2) 100.00% 99.26% 89.72% Standard Mail (SA) 97.02% 77.74% Priority Mail Express (EX) USPS Retail Ground (BP) 58.38% 99.48% 96.25% Library Rate (BL) 98.19% 97.67% 82.62% Grand total 99.70% 98.78% 97.75% Threshold Threshold Threshold 99.70% 98.78% 99.97% 98.30% 98.33% 96.59% 91.98% 97.75% Manifest Timeliness 97.24% Address Timeliness 91.85% Packages With IMpb Address and/or 11-Digit DPV ZIP Code Shipping Services File v1.6 or higher Source: USPS Product Tracking & Reporting (PTR) February 9, 2017

IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics – Simplified List
Address Quality Shipping Services File Quality Barcode Quality 94.13% Jan 2017 ACTUAL TARGET: 89% 94.20% Jan 2017 ACTUAL TARGET: 91% 99.47% Jan 2017 ACTUAL TARGET: 95% Measures percent of addresses* with enough information to validate to the unique exact 11-digit DPV ZIP Code when matched against the AMS Database. Benefits: Operational efficiency Enables personalized features such as My USPS Avoids operational costs (Manual scheme lookup/PRES Keying) Improves deliverability Measures percent of manifest records that pass key package level detail validations mitigating potential errors when processed in the PTR Database. Benefits: Supports timely postage payment and revenue assurance Enhances tracking and customer experience Provides digital awareness of packages that will be delivered by USPS Facilitates better workload planning Eliminates need for manual counts Enables better analytics, insights, decisions Measures percent of tracking numbers that pass key validations for format and uniqueness* without errors or warnings when manifests are processed in the PTR Database and physically scanned. Benefits: Critical for visibility and the customer experience Creates the digital trail Supports payment and revenue assurance Facilitates operational efficiencies Foundational for current and future product offerings February 9, 2017

IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics
Top 6 Issues January 2017 % of Total Manifest* 4.00% .79% .52% .36% 0.49% 0.17% ENTRY FACILITY MISMATCH - ENTRY FACILITY DOES NOT MATCH MANIFEST FILE INVALID METHOD OF PAYMENT INVALID PO OF ACCOUNT ZIP CODE INVALID PAYMENT ACCOUNT NUMBER INVALID MAILER ID DUPLICATE TRACKING NUMBER MANIFEST QUALITY NON-COMPLIANCE BARCODE QUALITY NON-COMPLIANCE *Competitive Products Only February 9, 2017

IMpb Address Quality 21,580,527 Packages w/Address Quality Issues* January 2017 39.87% 26.25% 20.64% 5.87% 13.24% Addresses Unable to Resolve to Unique 11-Digit Delivery Point Validated (DPV) ZIP Code Percent of Address Quality Volume* 8,603,176 Missing Secondary Information (i.e., no Apartment or Suite Number) 5,664,772 Missing Street Number 4,455,266 Unable to Match ZIP+4 Code 2,857,313 Invalid Primary Street Number Packages with insufficient address information 1.08% *Competitive Products Only

PTR Error/Warning Message PTR Error/Warning Message
IMpb Quality Compliance Validations Reporting Period (Jan 1, Jan 31, 2016) Address Quality (AQ): 4 Validation Combinations Manifest Quality (MQ): 4 Validation Combinations DPV DPV Footnote Description July 2016 Volume % of Total Volume % of Total AQ Errors PTR Indicator AAN1 Missing Secondary Information (i.e., no Apartment or Suite Number 8,603,176 2.34% 33.83% AQ A1M1 Missing Street Number 5,664,772 1.54% 22.28% A1 Unable to Match Address to a ZIP+4 Code 4,455,266 1.21% 17.52% AAM3 Invalid Primary Street Number 2,857,313 0.78% 11.24% DZ No Address 3,848,569 1.05% 15.13% PTR Warning # PTR Error/Warning Message July 2016 Volume % of Total Volume % of Total MQ Errors PTR Indicator 1 MQ Entry Facility Mismatch - Entry Facility Does Not Match Manifest File 14,695,342 4.00% 68.98% MQ 136 Invalid PO of account Zip Code 1,898,829 0.52% 8.91% 1535 Invalid Payment account number 1,795,270 0.49% 8.43% 193 Invalid Method of Payment 2,914,189 0.79% 13.68% TBD (UN) IMPB: MAIL PIECE WAS UNMANIFESTED AT THE TIME OF AAU Or Piece never received a Manifest 5,918,620 1.61% 21.74% Barcode Quality (BQ): 2 Validation Combinations PTR Warning # PTR Error/Warning Message July 2016 Volume % of Volume % of Total BQ Errors PTR Indicator 66 Duplicate Tracking Numbers on Multiple Packages 639,919 0.17% 32.61% BQ 50 Invalid MID in PIC 1,322,531 0.36% 67.39% Secondary information address quality measurement – will be assessed beginning July 2017 February 9, 2017

IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics
IMpb Quality Target Thresholds Competitive Products* Only Actual Performance Target Threshold IMpb Quality Compliance Category Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Jul Jan 2018 Destination Delivery Address (AQ) Top 4 AQ 94.61% 94.13% 89% TBD Top 4 AQ + Projected Merger DZ (Start July 1, 2017) 93.54% 93.08% Difference -1.07% -1.05% Shipping Services File (MQ) Top 4 MQ 94.93% 94.20% 91% 94% Top 4 MQ + Projected Merger UN 93.04% 92.59% -1.89% -1.61% IMpb Barcode (BQ) Top 2 BQ 99.16% 99.47% 95% 98%

IMPB_COMPLIANCE_CODE BEFORE_MIDNIGHT_FLAG
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call: IMpb Latency Issue After reviewing all the labels being questioned below, USPS was able to determine that all five labels fall under the same scenario… The POSTING_DATETIME_07 being displayed above is the date/time the event posted to the PTR Database, NOT THE TIME THE 07 EVENT OCCURRED The IMpb logic that assess Manifest Timeliness compares when PTR Posted the MA Event to the Local Event Time of the 07 (AAU). Implementation for Assessments : February 2015 – April 2015: Measure only, non-compliance pieces below threshold not assessed $0.20 fee May 2015 – July 2015 – Measure compliance at the Arrival at Post Office event, assess $0.20 fee for non-compliant pieces exceeding threshold August 2015 – Determine if compliance measurement at the Arrival at Post Office event is effective or needs to occur at an earlier event Fixes for eVS IMpb report May 6, 2015 LABEL_ID POSTING_DATETIME_07 POSTING_DATETIME_MA IMPB_COMPLIANCE_CODE BEFORE_MIDNIGHT_FLAG O7_EVENT_DATETIME :27:51 :45:40 UN NO :15:33 :46:46 :45:34 :25:27 :43:47 :03:43 :24:05 :07:44 :25:40 :58:38 :20:51 :21:45 :05:35

Implementation for Assessments :
MTAC Pulse of Industry Call: Issues IMpb Compliance Review The local Date Time of the 07 Event occurred the prior day of when PTR received and processed the MA event :15:33 (07) < :45:40 (MA) Implementation for Assessments : February 2015 – April 2015: Measure only, non-compliance pieces below threshold not assessed $0.20 fee May 2015 – July 2015 – Measure compliance at the Arrival at Post Office event, assess $0.20 fee for non-compliant pieces exceeding threshold August 2015 – Determine if compliance measurement at the Arrival at Post Office event is effective or needs to occur at an earlier event Fixes for eVS IMpb report May 6, 2015

IMpb Updates The Workgroup to discuss the Address Quality thresholds for July will reconvene July 2017. PTR will begin conducting IMpb Quality Compliance Webinars (Proposed start date March 2017). Webinars will serve as a way to notify the industry of the upcoming changes to the IMpb Quality Requirements that will be implemented starting July 2017. Proposed Topics IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics – Overview IMpb Quality Reports IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Barcode Quality IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Address Quality IMpb Compliance Deep Drive – Manifest Quality (SSF) March 10 will be the due date to have the draft FRN Proposed Rule for IMpb Quality published on PostalPro/RIBBS until the proposed rule can be officially posted in the Federal Register

Stop The Clock Tracking Events
Scan Event Description

Informed Visibility® (IV®)
Agenda Informed Visibility® (IV®) Pulse of the Industry Questions Mail Class Pulse Reports: Standard Mail Periodicals Mail First-Class Mail (FCM) Functional Pulse Reports: Mail Prep and Entry (Operations) Enterprise Analytics and Data Usage

IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Status
What is the status of IV Mail Tracking & Reporting? Preparing for IMb Tracing® and PostalOne!® container and handling unit transitioning to IV Conducting comparative data validation between IV and legacy systems Meeting weekly with MTAC UG4 to review and discuss MTR functionality Executing Communications Educational Awareness Plan Developing external messages, training curriculum, User Guides and Customer On-boarding Process. Completed development for release 2 roles and permissions and are currently testing functionality Planning for releases 3 and beyond

IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Timeline as of 02.13.17
What is the new timeline? Release Scope Deployment** Release 1.0 Piece Visibility – Automation Scans (IMb Tracing) Container and Tray Visibility Bundle Visibility – Automation Handling Events Phase 1 of Web-Enabled Mail Tracking Phase 1 of Flexible Data Provisioning Flexible Data Delegation Piece Visibility – Logical Delivery Events Mar. 2017 Release 2.0 Roles and permissions management Apr. 2017 Release 2.1 Bundle Visibility – Logical Out for Delivery Events Logical Delivery Events for mail that receive Logical Out for Delivery Event Assumed events for nested mail objects based on bundle handling events Release 2.2 Assumed events for nested mail objects based on container and handling units May 2017 Release 3.0 Start-the-Clock Visibility Phase 2 of Web-Enabled Mail Tracking Thus far, we have the scope for three releases that will be deployed from March 2017 through May 2017. These dates are contingent on the results of each pilot and are subject to change. Additional releases are still being planned for the remainder of FY2017. Additional releases for FY17 are still being planned. **Dates are contingent on pilot results.

IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data? IV Release 1 Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects Mail Object Actual Handling Event Logical Handling Event Pieces (letters and flats) Visibility provided to MID on piece (Full- Service not required) Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that use the Reply Mail ZIP® construct, IV provides visibility to the CRIDs who have that routing code associated to them. Visibility provided to MID on piece if piece is Full-Service OR has a Reply Mail STID Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that use the Reply Mail ZIP construct, IV provides visibility to the CRIDs who have that routing code associated to them. Bundles Visibility provided to MID on piece of pieces within a bundle (Full-Service not required) Future Release Handling units Visibility provided to Mail Owner and Mail Preparer of pieces within a handling unit who have at least 1 Full-Service piece in the handling unit* Containers Visibility provided to Mail Owner and Mail Preparer of pieces within a container who have at least 1 Full-Service piece in the container* Visibility in IV is limited to mail objects with Intelligent Mail® barcodes (IMb™), Intelligent Mail® tray barcodes (IMtb), and Intelligent Mail® container barcodes (IMcb). In a future release, bundle visibility will be expanded to include saturation mail and Every Door Direct Mail™ (EDDM), which utilize simplified addressing. In some cases, visibility in IV requires that a mail object be Full-Service Intelligent Mail® if eligible for Full-Service. Full-Service Intelligent Mail requires unique Intelligent Mail barcodes on mailpieces, handling units, and containers; electronic documentation; and the use of Facility Access and Shipment Tracking (FAST®) to schedule appointments for entry drop-ship mailings and all mailer-transported, origin-entered mail verified at a detached mail unit (DMU). See the table for visibility requirements in IV for Release 1 for handling events by mail object. These are the same visibility requirements used by the legacy IMb Tracing and PostalOne! systems. Note: Logical handling events are not available in IMb Tracing and PostalOne!. *Electronic documentation (eDoc) is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces.

IV Mail Tracking Visibility Requirements Continued…
What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data? DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects Mail Object Actual Handling Event Assumed Handling Event† Logical Handling Event Pieces (letters and flats) Visibility provided to MID on piece and Mail Owner* (Full-Service not required) Note: For IMb-barcoded pieces that use the Reply Mail ZIP construct, IV provides visibility to the CRIDs who have that routing code associated to them. Visibility provided to MID on piece and Mail Owner* if piece is: Full-Service OR Not eligible for Full-Service OR Residual mail‡ OR Reply Mail Bundles Visibility provided to MID on Piece and Mail Owner* of pieces within a bundle (Full-Service not required) Visibility provided to MID on Piece and Mail Owner* of pieces within a bundle when at least one of their pieces within the bundle is: In future IV releases, mail visibility will be expanded to include assumed handling events and additional logical handling events. In addition, mail visibility will be made available in some cases to the eDoc Submitter, FAST Scheduler, and owner of the MID used in the IMtb or IMcb. Finally, mail visibility for containers and handling units will be expanded to include mail not eligible for Full-Service. See the table below for the draft future visibility requirements in IV for handling events by mail object. Note: The future visibility requirements in the table below will be implemented over several releases. * eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for Full-Service as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces. † Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers, handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units. ‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.

What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data? DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects…continued Mail Object Actual Handling Event Assumed Handling Event† Logical Handling Event Handling Units Visibility provided to Mail Owner, Mail Preparer*, and MID on Piece of pieces within a handling unit when at least one of their pieces within the handling unit is: Full-Service OR Not eligible for Full-Service OR Residual mail‡ OR Reply Mail Visibility provided to eDoc Submitter* and MID on tray when at least one of the pieces within the handling unit is: * eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for Full-Service as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces. † Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers, handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units. ‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.

What are the visibility requirements for certain types of data? DRAFT Future Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects…continued Mail Object Actual Handling Event Assumed Handling Event† Logical Handling Event Containers Visibility provided to Mail Owner, Mail Preparer*, and MID on Piece of pieces within a container when at least one of their pieces within the container is: Full-Service OR Not eligible for Full-Service OR Residual mail‡ OR Reply Mail Visibility provided to eDoc Submitter*, MID on container, and FAST Scheduler for appointment associated to container when at least one of the pieces within the container is: * eDoc is required to determine if pieces within a container, handling unit, or bundle are Full-Service or eligible for Full-Service as well as determine the Mail Owner, Mail Preparer, and eDoc Submitter of the pieces. † Assumed handling events are dependent upon mailer eDocs (Mail.dat® or Mail.XML eDoc) for mailer containers, handling units, or bundles and Postal Service nesting information for Postal Service containers and handling units. ‡ Visibility of residual mail is only provided if the eDoc Submitter CRID had at least one month in the past three months in which 95% or higher of their Full-Service eligible pieces were mailed as Full-Service.

Visibility Requirements for Mail Objects
Visibility of logical handling events and assumed handling events will require that the mailpiece meet one of the following criteria: Full-Service mailpiece Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc and is Full-Service Not eligible for Full-Service Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc and has a rate category that is not eligible for Full-Service Residual mail Mailpiece is associated to an eDoc where the eDoc Submitter CRID has had at least one month in which the number of Full-Service pieces divided by the total number of Full-Service eligible pieces is 95% or higher. Qualifying eDoc Submitter CRIDs will be re-evaluated quarterly. Reply mail Mailpiece has an IMb that uses a reply mail STID Full Rate Mailpiece is paid at full rate Visibility of logical handling events and assumed handling events for bundles will require that at least one mailpiece within the bundle that the MID/CRID has visibility of meets the above criteria Visibility of actual handling events, logical handling events and assumed handling events for containers and handling units will require that at least one mailpiece within the container or handling unit that the MID/CRID has visibility of meets the above criteria

IV Mail Tracking & Reporting
There is industry concern regarding a successful implementation of IV given the many false starts and issues encountered so far. What is the status of the IV pilot? USPS is ensuring that the IV system is performing optimally prior to offering this solution to customers. We are committed to providing a quality product that ultimately helps improve the service offering of mailers. USPS is installing additional hardware to ensure optimal performance for customers. With IV's ease of use and flexibility, we anticipate an increase in the number of users over the legacy systems. Additional hardware being added to ensure support of increased volume. The pilot start is on the horizon while we await completion of internal validation and testing and installation of additional hardware.

IMb Tracing® What is being done to ensure that IMb Tracing will not fail during the transition period? USPS will continue to monitor and support the IMb Tracing system during the transition to IV. We are aware of the performance issues which caused scan latency for customers. Marked improvements were observed following driver updates. We are continuing to look for ways to improve performance during this transition period.

What additional events will IV provide? In addition to Actual Handling Events, IV will provide Assumed and Logical Handling Events. An Assumed Handling Event is an implied scan of a nested mailpiece, bundle, handling unit, or container. These events will be created for nested mail when a mail aggregate receives an event. Assumed Handling Events for mail that is nested by mailers to containers, handling units, and bundles will be implemented in Release 2.1. Assumed Handling Events for mail that is nested to trailers or postal containers or handling units will be implemented in a future release. For example, this may provide Assumed Handling Events when a trailer receives an arrival event. A Logical Handling Event is any other implied event based on business rules. There are two planned logical handling events so far: Logical Delivery Events will be implemented as part of R1 Logical Out for Delivery Events will be implemented as part of R 2.1

IV Internal Service Performance Measurement
How is Internal Service Performance Measurement (SPM) Sampling Randomized? Randomness probability is proportional to size, with the size based on expected number of mailpieces to be delivered at an address. The number of pieces also takes in to account the probability of a particular sampling group, which is based on class and shape, to be delivered on that day. Address type, rate, and presort are not a factor. For carriers, there is a limitation for how many samples are scheduled for each delivery route, route per week, and quarter. This way carrier workloads are not impacted. Randomness is not impacted despite the limitation.

Is there potential for intentional data collection to troubleshoot service issues and distinguish between SPM data capture and troubleshooting data capture? The capability of "Operational Sampling: Delivery Unit/route specific sampling Requests for Operational Visibility," is a future enhancement. This allows for sampling requests to be from a specific route or addresses serviced out of a Delivery Unit. However, this data will not be used in the calculation used for official measurement.

How will USPS use Internal SPM to identify under-performing service areas (pieces) and how will this information be leveraged to improve service? IV provides daily sampling data to operations in the form of a Last Mile Diagnostics report allowing the field to see the results of all usable samples at a level of detail that was not previously available. SPM reports provide detailed data showing the date, office, mail shape, mail class, and route level. This information enables USPS Operations to identify where the last operation occurred; thus, allowing Operations to identify areas for service improvement. The combination of tools and robust near real-time reporting allows Delivery Units and plants to maximize their operating efficiency. This insight is very powerful and will allow USPS to make considerable improvements in a short amount of time.

IV Mail Inventory & Predictive Workloads
The Industry foresees that more agile communication updates at a container-level will likely be needed between the Industry and USPS to realize potential of Predictive Workflow and Inventory from greater accuracy of information. Where should this discussion begin as development will be needed for both the Industry and USPS? The ability to make timely decisions on how to handle the mail to meet service standards based on the near real-time conditions of the mail facility will benefit not only the USPS, but mailers as well. Discussions have begun and we are requesting for coordination with the industry to promote information sharing. We would like for mailers to provide: Electronic documentation (eDoc) that will be coupled with postal scan information to show on-hand and expected volumes for mail processing facilities and delivery units. Information on work-sharing done by the mailer, including receiving advanced information on the count of containers, handling units and pieces. This will allow IV to predict the end-to-end mail flow of received mail pieces. Advanced information on the nesting of pieces to presorted bundles and trays and the nesting of these bundles and trays to presorted containers. Advanced information on the nesting of parcels to presorted sacks or containers. Assignment of containers with their nesting information to specific FAST appointments Through IV, mailers will be able to receive near real-time tracking and visibility information about mail in the mailstream. The Postal Service and mailers alike can use this information as a tool for making intelligent business decisions to enhance the value of mail.

What data validation is being performed by USPS HQ management to monitor the accuracy of Logical Delivery Events (LDEs) that will now be supplied to mailers via the IV platform? Validations we have performed: Pieces that have the Operation Codes 146, 538, 918, 919 and an Anticipated Date of Delivery (ADD) are receiving a LDE, when appropriate ZIP+4 triggers are available LDE Delivery Mode (On-Street, PO Box, Delivery Unit Caller Service) are being determined accurately based on the Delivery ZIP Types (Firm, Rural, PO Box, Street, High Rise, General Delivery) Below are metrics we are continuing to monitor: Coverage of ZIP+4 triggers used to generate On-Street LDE Coverage of 5-Digit ZIPs for PO Box Distribution Complete scans used to generate PO Box LDE Coverage of ZIP+4s for generated LDE List of eligible piece scans in our LDE Inventory (valid Operation Code, ADD, Delivery ZIP Type) that are receiving an LDE LDE volumes by scan date and hour-of-day

IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Logical Delivery Events
Provide an understanding of how and when Logical Delivery Events and time stamps will take place for data in IV for different address types. Criteria for creating Logical Delivery Events The table below describes the criteria IV uses to add a mailpiece to inventory for delivery based on the last expected processing operation as well as the trigger criteria and time used for the logical delivery event. The criteria differ based on the type of delivery: Inventory and Trigger Criteria for Logical Delivery Events Delivery Scenario Inventory Criteria Trigger Criteria and Time Used for Logical Delivery Event On-street Mailpiece received processing scan with one of the following opcodes: 146, 538, 918, or 919 OR Has an “Out for Delivery” event (Note: This event will not be available until Release 2.1) Carrier device enters geofence on the Anticipated Delivery Date (ADD) for the associated ZIP+4 PO Box PO Box uptime barcode is scanned on the ADD for the associated Post Office Caller Service (Delivery Unit) Opening time of Post Office on the ADD To be added to inventory for delivery, a mailpiece must receive an opcode of 146, 538, 918, or 919. Beginning in Release 2.1, a Logical Out for Delivery Event will also add the mailpiece to inventory for delivery. The triggering criteria are divided into three categories: For on-street deliveries, when a carrier’s scanning device enters the associated ZIP+4, then Logical Delivery Events are generated for all mailpieces within that ZIP+4 For PO Box deliveries, when the PO Box distribution complete barcode is scanned, then Logical Delivery Events are generated for all mailpieces being delivered to that PO Box unit For Caller Service out of the Delivery Unit, at the Post Office opening time, Logical Delivery Events are generated for all mailpieces available for caller service pickup

Why are the two logical handling events that IV will implement in Release 1 and Release 2.1 not considered Stop-the-Clock events? A Stop-the-Clock event is used to measure service for some products. For parcels, the Stop-the-Clock event is provided when a parcel is scanned at delivery or attempted delivery. Stop-the-Clock event for letters and flats is when the last processing scan occurs for those mailpieces. The logical handling event is derived when the last processing scan generates the Anticipated Date of Delivery. To measure service for letters and flats, USPS combines the processing duration score and adjusts based on Last Mile sampling and for single piece adjusts based on First Mile sampling. Last Mile sampling involves an actual scan at delivery. These are combined with processing profiles to generate end-to-end service performance scores.

IV Mail Tracking & Reporting Education
What Educational Tools will be made available? Posting educational and reference materials to IV RIBBS and IV PostalPro websites to include : IV Overview and Benefits for New Users and Current Customers IV Program Information Migration Information IV User Guides and Training IV Reference Materials Meeting regularly with MTAC User Group 4 to discuss IV features Scheduling series of webinars prior to and after national deployment IV training presentations Live demonstrations Recorded demonstrations Question & Answer sessions We have a Educational Awareness Plan that will provide customers with a clear look into IV. As we approach deployments, we will post reference materials, guides, and trainings to IV RIBBS and IV PostalPro for customers to access. We will also have a series of webinars (live and recorded) for migrating customers and new customers to cover how to apply for IV, how to migrate data from legacy systems to IV, how to manage data subscriptions, data delegation and other information necessary to successfully use IV.

Provide a system overview of IV, including the new infrastructure and technology used, so that industry can understand how the system is designed. IV is a Big Data Solution The platform centralizes information from a multitude of sources including: 35,708 postal facilities of which 290 process mail. 6,325+ pieces of mail processing equipment. 350,000 handheld scanners (325,000 scanners at delivery units and 25,000 at mail processing facilities). Real-time geo-coordinates as carriers deliver to 155 million delivery points nationally. 82 different postal systems. IV will process 173 billion transactions per day (2 million per second) to build enterprise intelligence.

Enterprise Analytics/
Address Management & Geospatial Technology Updates – Jim Wilson

CASS Cycle N Extension Reminder
The current CASS Cycle N certification is effective until July 31, 2018 CASS Software Vendors must submit an extension request prior to April 30, 2018 to extend CASS Cycle N- certified product(s) through July 31, 2019 Send request via to: 11 Certified CASS Vendors have requested an extension /Announcements/CycleODecision.pdf

SHA-1 to SHA-256 Conversion
Update Approximately 54% of developers are downloading and have started coding for SHA-256 27% have completed coding 10% have distributed the SHA-256 to customers and 5% have stopped distributing SHA-1 data All systems must be transitioned to SHA-256 no later than July 1, 2017 Seamless transition to mailers 83

SingleSource ACS Fulfillment
Full-Service ACS SingleSource ACS Fulfillment Pending the Federal Register Notice finalization Full-Service & OneCode® ACS notices from UAA First-Class Mail and Marketing Mail are provided in a single Daily fulfillment file through EPF Charges will be applied only under the following conditions: Full Service volume threshold not met IMb on the mailpiece is not unique IMb not having a Full-Service ACS or OneCode ACS® STID Mail owner identification in eDoc is not accurate IMb cannot be matched to eDoc

Traditional ACS Reconciliation for Full-Service Periodicals
Reconciliation Reports Pending the Federal Register Notice finalization Reconciliation Reports & Scan Rate monitoring will be discontinued, but MID/PID table will be maintained Traditional ACS notices provided to Full Service qualifying publishers will be reported on the Shipping Notice - If qualified Trad ACS notices will not be charged Exceptions: IMb with qualifying MID has a STID that does NOT request Full-Service ACS

Manual Notices for Full-Service Periodicals PS Form 3579 Pending Federal Register Notice finalization Full-Service publications will not be required to receive or pay for Manual notices unless requested If the IMb cannot be read, a manual notice may be generated Instructions will be provided to Post Offices of qualifying publications and copied to the publisher

Future Addressing Initiatives
MTAC User Group 5 Future Addressing Initiatives Increase the Total Number of Addresses Covered by a R777 Designation Improve the use of ICOA methods to engage customers for address updates Improve corrections and updates to ACS and NCOA records that didn’t initially DPV Update the frequency of products that provide address data to industry Consider other address attributes in AMS that may be beneficial to industry UG5 Meeting Notes from Jan 11, 2017: Increase the Total Number of Addresses Covered by a R777 Designation We have validated approximately 13% of the 1.4 million addresses since starting this effort in January. The validated addresses will be added to AMS and assigned to an R777 routes to allow for address validation. R777 Designation = mail not delivered – and street address information is not in the USPS AMS database. Jim shared the use of the USPS addressing system is becoming more widespread, so the lack of this information can create some customer experience issues. The USPS has about 1.4 M addresses that fall into the category of R777 address types. The USPS will work with local county / planning authorities to improve on this address data capture and will work with the USPS AMS field offices to improve the capture of these addresses into the AMS database. Improve the use of internet change of address methods to engage customers for address updates Today when a customer files a change of address and it can’t be matched to the AMS database the USPS asks if it is new construction. Based on this response the USPS takes action to work this with the USPS field offices. There are about 30% of addresses that can’t be verified that come in through this process. The USPS plans to engage customers differently by attempting to the customer for improved information before the field offices are engaged further for resolution. Improve corrections and updates to ACS and NCOA records that didn’t initially DPV When a customer files a change of address and it fails to provide information such as apartment details to correctly DPV there is an attempt to get updates from the customer or the field. When this occurs there isn’t a good mechanism established on how to provide updates to improve the address captured to industry. The USPS will be exploring ways in which the new address improvement information can be provided. Update the frequency of products that provide address data to industry The USPS is exploring improvements to the ways in which more frequent updates to the AMS, City State, and other USPS data files – may be utilized. There are about 25K updates to customer records each week – so if a mailer only updates monthly they could be missing more than 100K more timely changes. The USPS is interested to improve the frequency of these updates to help improve and resolve addressing gaps. Other address data attributes in AMS that may be beneficial to industry The USPS is looking at what other attributes in the AMS database that may be of interest and beneficial to the mailing industry. There may be other data elements that could be disclosed via the DPV tables. Other Data Quality & Timeliness improve opportunities with address data The USPS is continuing to look at other opportunities to improve here as well. UG Questions – to the USPS on other areas the USPS is working on included: Dashboard of UAA Analytics for Internal Offices The USPS is also pursuing standing up a dashboard of UAA analytics that could help expose other internal improvement opportunities related to UAA down to the carrier level. This would enable pattern analytics to determine the factors that contribute to UAA. The idea is also to help look at address volatility for changes/delivery issues, etc. This reporting system will first be developed internally, but at some point there may be benefit to see how to share some of this externally in the future. Fraud address concerns There are ongoing discussions around the opportunities and improvements to enhance the ability to detect and determine fraud in the change of address process. It has also been discussed how others in the industry may be able to have access to this data. It is touchy on how it could be misconstrued or used, so the USPS is cautiously reviewing these options for available information in the future. Disaster Recovery support for addressing The USPS is looking to work more closely with FEMA and other agencies, such as the National Office of Preparedness, to help identify and improve on future predictions for storm damage, flooding, etc. Overall the USPS is working to improve and anticipate potential impacted areas. Geospatial and Lat/Long detail in USPS data files There is an interest by industry expressed to have additional lat/long details included into USPS address data files. The USPS is aware of this and is looking at intellectual property and other limitations about this now. Many times the USPS has data ahead of others so they are exploring how to capitalize on this some way. USPS has approximately 98% of Lat/Long data for its addresses. Big Data Analytics Angela Lawson is the current Director of Advanced Analytics. She is looking is working with her data scientists to look at ways to uncover other things to improve/know about a variety of topics. Addressing is also one of the areas she is looking to further glean some correlating factors around. We discussed it would be of interest to have Angela come to a future meeting to discuss this with us. International Addressing The USPS has considered doing some type of fulfillment of ACS record templates for customers putting in a change of address for overseas. There are no other significant efforts in plan for international addressing by the USPS at this time. Kelly is working with the UPU for future addressing improvements. 87

The resulting documents have been posted to PostalPro:
MTAC Work Group 177 Sunset in November 2016 The resulting documents have been posted to PostalPro: Improvements in Address Quality Methodologies ACS Best Practices 88

College & University Group
User Group 5 College & University Group Solutions for UAA Mail from Higher Education Mail for students leaving college each year must be redirected by the schools Forces mail into the manual processing stream The mailing industry does not have access to the address correction information, except through returned mail or contact with the student 89

User Group 5 College & University Group NCOALink® for EDU Pilot Students provide forwarding information to the school and permits school to share with USPS School continues to handle the mail School creates an encrypted file that contains student records and uploads to the USPS via secure web service (EPF) USPS processes data and adds student records to NCOALink® Schools monitor volume of forwarded and returned mail and reports to USPS monthly USPS will report matches as Code 07 and will monitor counts Notice to NCOALink licensees will be provided AFTER MTAC.

Pilot Timeline: DATE TASK RESPONSIBLE Jan – Apr 2017 Announcement NACUMS /USPS Mar 1 - Sep 30 Pilot Test Period USPS/Schools Mar - Apr Schools Enroll, Participation Kit provided Schools Mar 2017 Enrollment for EPF File Upload account Testing & Feedback Period. Schools begin to record volume of FWD/RTS/Waste Mail Schools/USPS 4th Tue of Month Mar - Oct 2017 NCOA for EDU 3PM ET Meeting #: Due 7th of Month Apr - Oct Schools monitor & report volume of UAA Mail Apr Schools begin uploading files Student Records added to NCOALink® USPS TBD Nov 2017 Meeting to Determine Success/Fail

Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Pre-MTAC Industry Pulse Responses February 2017."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback