The rationale for setting the solve order specifically to 58, rather than to 0, 20, 38, or 57.

Summary:

In FCCS, we are currently performing metadata validation and have encountered an error stating: "The Solve order for this member should be 58."

We would like to gain clarity on the reasoning behind the specific requirement for the solve order to be set at 58, rather than other potential values.

Understanding the rationale for this particular setting would greatly assist us in ensuring compliance with the system's requirements.

—

After we have updated the solve order of impacted account members to 58 as suggested, we found a few calculated accounts with solve order = 0 could not be calculated. 

 Then, we tried to update the solve order of those calculated accounts 58/ 59/ largest solve order 127, still unable to get the calculated result.