# Circumstancing case processing

**URL:** <https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616>\
**Category:** General\
**Tags:** pega-academy\
**Created:** [April 8, 2024, 4:06am UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616 "2024-04-08T04:06:48Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArnoldG16957468](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/pega/user_avatar/forums.pega.com/arnoldg16957468/32/9918_2.png) [@ArnoldG16957468](https://forums.pega.com/u/ArnoldG16957468)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2024, 4:06am UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616/1 "2024-04-08T04:06:48Z")

</div>

Hi!

Below is a question from the academy which I’d need some more clarification to the choice of answer given.

Based on the information below, if you execute the Rule when _.Dept=Accounting_, which version does Pega Platform™ use?

Rule Version Circumstance

01-01-01 None  
01-01-01 .Dept=Accounting  
01-01-15 None  
01-01-25 None, base Rule selected  
01-01-30 .Dept=Accounting  
01-01-35 None

- 01-01-01, .Dept=Accounting

- 01-01-25, None, base Rule selected

- 01-01-01, None

- 01-01-30, .Dept=Accounting .Please, I’d humbly like to know why 01-01-35 wasn’t considered. Thanks

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SohamM95](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/pega/user_avatar/forums.pega.com/sohamm95/32/4726_2.png) [@SohamM95](https://forums.pega.com/u/SohamM95)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2024, 5:46am UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616/2 "2024-04-08T05:46:10Z")

</div>

@ArnoldG16957468

01-01-30 was not considered because on the page where the rule was running, Pega not able to evaluate the value of property .Dept=Accounting. So it ignored it and selected the next available version 01-01-25, which is the base version so no need to evaluate anything here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArnoldG16957468](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/pega/user_avatar/forums.pega.com/arnoldg16957468/32/9918_2.png) [@ArnoldG16957468](https://forums.pega.com/u/ArnoldG16957468)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2024, 9:22am UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616/3 "2024-04-08T09:22:50Z")

</div>

@SohamM95

The question as mentioned earlier is an Academy quiz question . The Academy chose

01-01-30 .Dept=Accounting as the right answer. My question is why wasn’t 01-01-35 None

considered?. 01-01-35 None, being the highest uncircumstanced version with respect to the base

rule version (01-01-25 None, base Rule selected)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SohamM95](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/pega/user_avatar/forums.pega.com/sohamm95/32/4726_2.png) [@SohamM95](https://forums.pega.com/u/SohamM95)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2024, 10:13am UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616/4 "2024-04-08T10:13:25Z")

</div>

@ArnoldG16957468

Ok I think I got a better clarity of the example now.

Whenever a rule has been circumstanced, Pega’s rule resolution will check the circumstance condition first in the versions. If its able to find it then it’ll consider that version even if the version might not be the highest in the stack. In your case 01-01-35 was the highest available base version, but the page on which the rule was running had the condition .Dept=Accounting present, so it ignored 01-01-35 and chose 01-01-30, which is the highest available circumstanced version.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ArnoldG16957468](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/pega/user_avatar/forums.pega.com/arnoldg16957468/32/9918_2.png) [@ArnoldG16957468](https://forums.pega.com/u/ArnoldG16957468)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2024, 6:01pm UTC](https://forums.pega.com/t/circumstancing-case-processing/6616/5 "2024-04-08T18:01:50Z")

</div>

@SohamM95

Thanks for the clarification.

I appreciate it!