I've been working with IBM to try and filter out "false positives" on the TADz reporting for Panvalet usage.
In our discussion the question came up: Under what circumstances can the detected usage of the PAM module be considered to be a reliable indicator of usage of the Panvalet product?
I would extend that to include the caveat that there are no OTHER Panvalet modules being used - so the (altered) question becomes: Under what circumstances can the detected usage of ONLY the PAM module be considered to be a reliable indicator of usage of the Panvalet product?
All supported versions of CA Panvalet
The detection of the PAM module by its self is not an indicator of a Panvalet user.
A true Panvalet user will invoke several Panvalet modules such as FGPAN23, PAN#1, PAN#2, PAN#x, PANEXIT, PANMODI and various other modules.
FILEAID has a Panvalet interface and it appears that FILEAID invokes the PAM module as part of this interface and it does not indicate that the Panvalet interface was used. The PAM module only is an indication the Panvalet stub in FILEAID was present.
Again, a true Panvalet user will invoke several Panvalet modules.