No, but they were combined into one factor.
The two factors listed were rating and poor performance.
Oops. 
Bill Smythe
As noted, the old upload format (still used for most events being submitted) does not include the name or any other information that can be used to double-check the ID, hence the tests that are performed by the validation program.
The 2C upload format does include fields for name, state and rating. However, if someone pulls the wrong ID from the rating supplement file, it would have the wrong name, state and rating too. Having that information MAY help catch incorrect IDs due to an error in someone’s local player database, but we will still need to do the other checks.
FWIW, so far 92 events have been submitted using the 2C upload format, 814 have been submitted using the original upload format, and 194 were entered online. Some of the TDs who entered their events online took the time to include color information, most did not. The crosstable will show color if reported, as will the detail drill-down on the game statistics pages. (Appropriate summary statistics by color haven’t been defined or programmed yet.)
That’s a good start, about 11.3%, especially since it’s only been a couple of months. I’m sure these percentages will improve drastically and quickly.
Bill Smythe
As long as only recent versions of WinTD have the ability to generate the 2C file format, the percentages may stay fairly low.
Thad Suits has inquired as to the status of an XML-based format so he can add it to SwisSys, there probably won’t be one for another month or two, at best.
After having a few errors like that I switched over to first printing a WinTD cross-table in score order (well, score/rating order) and then going into each uploaded section and comparing the screen and report side by side. It’s really cut down on my correction requests to Walter Brown and the added time during the checking is less than the correction time used to be (and that comparison totally ignores that there are fewer issues with players/parents asking what happened).
Now the main corrections remaining are a misreported score or choosing the wrong ID when selecting between two players with the same name (particularly if both players are from the same state and roughly the same age).
The same thing happened in the top section of the Spiegel Cup (Massachusetts scholastic championship) last weekend. I think it’s because the player in question was rated much lower than most of the other players in the section, so even though he lost every game his performance rating was much higher than his current rating.
For Mike Nolan: the event ID for the Massachusetts tournament is 201202123892 and the player’s ID number is 12877597.
Maybe the Error/Warning message should just be more generic. Something like, Please take a moment and verify that this player is the actual player that played in your event.
We tried a ‘kinder gentler approach’ back in 2005. If we don’t require the TD to do SOMETHING, most will do NOTHING.
Last year we checked several dozen corrections involving changed IDs (other than duplicate ID issues.) Over half of them had an ‘alert’ about that ID in the final validation report for that event. (Alerts require no action on the TD’s part.)
No I’m saying that it would still be a Warning and require checking it.
Of course they could be blindly checked, but they can do that now. Or maybe go the other route and try to be more specific with the Warning message. Like in my case instead of Player played above is Rating (when he didn’t win any actual games) to Player with low rating in comparison to the rest of the field. Although I’m not sure that really should be an issue, because it probably happens a lot.
There probably is no best solution.
Even changing it from ‘rating’ to ‘low rating’ wouldn’t change things.
Perhaps the validation should be revised to treat the combination of ‘low rating’ and ‘poor performance’ as a non-warning, possibly along with ‘high rating’ and ‘strong performance’?
In the document, there is no field for TLA Reference. Can yo give me new documentation for it?
Also, There is a typo on Column name S_SECT_NUM in TSEXPORT. It is supposed to be S_SEC_NUM. I passed S_SECT_NUM, and did not see the result.
There is no upload format that has a TLA Reference field in it yet.
Given that the TLA needs to match up with USCF’s TLA records, I’m not sure it will be possible to include such a field.
I’m not sure where the typo you reference is, in which format?
Personally, this is one feature that I hope stays as is. Several times this warning has
kept me from entering a tournament with the wrong sibling (because I got his USCF
ID incorrectly switched), or same name individual.
Rob Jones
This is the document I mentioned about:
secure2.uschess.org/TD_Affil/fileformat.php
Do you have newer document/link?
It says S_SECT_NUM, it is supposed to be S_SEC_NUM, like the old name. At the TDEXPORT explanation, there is comment “Same as in S_SEC_NUM”. I tried to pass S_SECT_NUM, and did not work. When I changed to S_SEC_NUM, it worked fine.
Really? No TLA Reference for in the field in DBF? It means all files uploaded will be “error” and need to be manually entered. I just wish that we can have any DBF that pass “yellow” error 
The typo has been corrected.
The challenge with the TLA is matching it to right event for the sponsoring affiliate. An affiliate can have more than one TLA for an event, and can have more than one event that has a TLA being held on the same date. To complicate matters further, a TLA for a recurring event might only show the dates of the first such event and could be used for more than one event.
There are two internal ID numbers associated with a TLA (generated by two different systems), but for the most part the TD isn’t going to know either of them.
Tying the rating report to the right TLA could be even more important in 2013, both because of recent changes in the TLA system at the USCF office and because of a new year-long competition that may require the event have a TLA to qualify.