CJ Yetman

Personally, I don't see an issue like this --with a reasonable goal, well thought options for how to fix them, and some preliminary investigation of where the fixes need to...

@AlexAxthelm does that mean that this issue thread being open is tech debt, or that the problem that some `if` statements are not well defined is tech debt?

I dug into this today a bit. Just want to note here that in some places, especially when there's a default value, I actually prefer the warning in the `if`...

will discuss this with AR in the next meeting and go from there

maybe this happens because of the mix up about where sectors are merged/defined and possible sets of overrides that are not in sync? see... #343 2DegreesInvesting/data_preparation/issues/14

It's clear that line 191 in this file probably played a role in this: [data/fin_sector_overrides.csv](https://github.com/2DegreesInvesting/PACTA_analysis/blob/master/data/fin_sector_overrides.csv#L191) company_name | corporate_bond_ticker | bloomberg_id | fin_sector_override -- | -- | -- | -- SIEMENS...

We should also get rid of `{snakecase}` at the same time.

thanks @FrederickFa! excellent details @jacobvjk you seemed to have had very specific reasons for this in #310, can you advise?

Thanks folks! Also in agreement 100%. So next steps in my opinion... 1. figure out the most appropriate place in the code/process to do this (I would prefer this happen...

also looping in @AlexAxthelm here in case they want to take the lead on guiding the discussion about this issue with the overall PACTA team on behalf of the PACTA...