Per X12.61 "Design Rules and Guidelines," the design rule defined in section 2.3.8 states that standalone segments shall appear in the sequence ahead of any subordinate or nested loop. However, the IK5 and AK9 segments defined in 005010X231A1 appear to violate my interpretation of this rule. I also noticed that the referenced example in X12.61 (Example 2.8) appears to show standalone segments after the nested loops but prior to the SE. What segments is this rule referring to? Is this rule not meant to prevent a loop from defining additional segments after a nested loop? If not, what is this rule's intention, and what should we look for in Example 2.8?
We agree with your interpretation of design rule 2.3.8 as previously written for section 2.3.1 in 005010X231A1, however a currently unstated exception to this rule is that trailer segments used to close the transaction, logical area, loop or nested loop must be the final component of that transaction, logical area, loop or nested loop. For section 2.3.1 in 005010X231A1 the IK5 is the trailer segment used to close loop ID 2110 and the AK9 is the trailer used to close the logical area of the functional group in the referenced example 2.8 in X12.61, it reflects an EDI 849. The logical area of table 2 within the EDI 849 begins with the CON loop and ends with the SSS segment within the PAD loop. The segments implied between the SSS and SE segments are found in the logical area of table 3 and as such do not violate design rule 2.3.8. For clarity, we have updated design rule 2.3.8 to more clearly state that the exception to this rule are trailer segments used to close the transactions, logical area, loop, or nested loop.