Information about your group/project:
    Name(s) and e-mail(s)*: jesse.andries@oma.be, andy.devos@oma.be
    Associated Institution/Project name/Group name*: Royal Observatory of Belgium/Solar Influences Data analysis Centre - RWC Belgium
    Website url(s): sidc.be

Information about your method:
    Forecasting method name*: SIDC human operator moderated
    Shorthand unique identifier for your method (methodname_version, e.g. ASSA_1, ASAP_201201): SIDC_operator_v2 (for clarity, I'm calling this version 2, since pre 20150401 no full disk probabilities were communicated/stored. These could be reconstructed from the regional probabilities although somewhat inconsistently, since this does not allow to take operator judgement about newly arriving regions etc... I would hence call the pre 20150401 results SIDC_operator_v1 which for regional forecast would be identical but for Full Disk is either absent or an inconsistent reconstruction.)
    Short description*: As part of the daily space weather monitoring and forecasting operations this flare forecast is produced by the operator on duty aided and guided by statistics of flare occurrence as a function of active region properties.
    References:

Further Model Details:
    (1)* Please specify if the forecast is human generated, human generated but model-based, model-based, or other.
    --> Human generated but model-based

    (2)* Does your flare prediction method forecast “M1.0-9.9” or “M and above”? Would it be difficult for you to adapt your method from one to another? Which forecast binning method do you prefer?
    --> "M and above". In principle one can be calculated from the other so no real preference.

    (3)* How do you specify active regions in your model? Do you relate their location to other schemes such as NOAA or Catania? If so, what is your criterea to relate them?
    --> Both NOAA and Catania are used but the current production implementation forces a 1-to-1 correspondence which is not always applicable. It is our intent to solve that problem in the future. In the mean while our indication of both NOAA and Catania numbers can be somewhat ambiguous.

    (4)* Uncertainties given as an upper and lower bound is an optional field. Does your model provide uncertainties for the forecasted probability? 
If yes, what percentiles do you use to determine your upper and lower bound? If you are using the XML format, multiple percentiles of the probability density distribution can be specified.
    --> No

    (5)* For each forecast, what prediction window(s) does your method use? E.g. Does your method predict for the next 24 hours, 48, and 72 hours or the next 24 hours, 24-48 hours, 48-72 hours? (This information is useful for displaying only comparable methods together).
    --> next 24 hours

    (6)* Calibration levels are optional fields. Do you have calibration for the probabilities from your model? E.g. is a 40% forecast a “high” probability for your method? 
    --> No