{"meta":{"key":"s_oh--pass-02","task":"S_OH","title":"Remaining evidence: §4710.02 fee bases and aggregation","parent_title":"Ohio debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-02","path":"/research/s_oh--pass-02/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-23","tables":9,"claims":15,"sources":9,"review_status":"revise","review_complete":true,"sha256":"011230c89817d03ee04d40ec9fbd9cbd099452a72d0959a3e089e498d714719f","headings":["Remaining evidence: §4710.02 fee bases and aggregation","A. Substantive findings","1. Initial setup, initial consultation, and the annual consultation limit","2. Multiple weekly or other submonthly administration charges","3. Fee-inclusive debit versus money paid for creditor distribution","4. Stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success fees","B. Actual-source register — documents retrieved and relevant passages read","Status reconciliation","C. Claim table","D. Actual earlier-claim patch map","Example disposition","E. Failed routes — excluded from the actual-source register","F. Dependency crosswalk — carried findings and unverified dependencies","G. Component coverage and exact remaining investigations","H. Researcher self-check"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-6","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_OH/pass-02","facets":{"geography":["us","us-oh"],"debt_type":[],"stage":[],"subject":["fees-outcomes"]},"scope":"Resolve only4710.02feebasis/aggregation: setupversusinitialconsultationand100annualcap; multipleweekly/submonthlycharges; fee-inclusivedebitversusactualdistributionbase; standalonesavings/principal/per-debtsuccessfeepathway. Seekcontrollingofficialinterpretation/casesandcurrentstatus. Preservegreater-of8.5%or30 andhardship. PatchC024-C026/examplesonlyifnewauthoritywarrants. NofullOhiooverview/CSOclearance.","pending_corrections":0},"markdown":"# SettleADebt — S_OH PASS-02\n\n## Remaining evidence: §4710.02 fee bases and aggregation\n\n**Result: none of the four held fee questions is cleared by the newly read authority.** The current statute, enacted amendment, official legislative analysis, agency comment, and judicial materials examined do not establish a controlling answer permitting:\n\n- Separate initial consultation and setup allowances to be stacked;\n- A fresh periodic allowance for every weekly or other submonthly charge;\n- Inclusion of retained provider fees in the creditor-distribution base; or\n- A stand-alone savings-, enrolled-principal-, or per-debt success fee.\n\nThere is one useful wording clarification: §4710.02(B)(3) measures an amount **paid for creditor distribution**. It does not expressly substitute an amount **actually disbursed during that same month**. That distinction does **not** resolve the gross-versus-net allocation of a bundled debit.\n\n**Baseline:** October 22, 2026, Pacific.\n**Actual access:** October 23, 2026, UTC, corresponding to October 22, 2026, Pacific for the checks reported here. The final current-statute check occurred at approximately **06:47 UTC / 23:47 PDT**.\n**Scope:** Only the four specified §4710.02 fee questions and the authority needed to evaluate them. This is not renewed Ohio market-access or CSO clearance.\n\nIn the discussion below, short references such as **S001** and **C001** mean **S_OH-P2-S001** and **S_OH-P2-C001**. PASS-01 identifiers are written separately.\n\n## A. Substantive findings\n\n### 1. Initial setup, initial consultation, and the annual consultation limit\n\nThe current official codification retains three distinct provisions relevant here: the $75 initial consultation-or-setup restriction, the $100 calendar-year consultation restriction, and the periodic administration restriction. It identifies **March 29, 2007**, and **H.B. 699, 126th General Assembly**, as the effective version. **[C001–C003; S001, §4710.02(B)(1)–(3)]** [Ohio Laws](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nThe annual consultation provision supports retaining the prior treatment of an **initial consultation charge as part of that year’s consultation total**. Calling a consultation “initial” does not expressly remove it from the consultation category.\n\nThe remaining questions are different:\n\n- Does a genuinely separate setup service consume the annual consultation allowance?\n- Does the word “or” in the initial-fee provision permit two separately priced initial services, each with its own allowance?\n- How should a combined consultation/setup charge be allocated?\n\n**No newly read controlling interpretation answers those questions.** The record therefore does not clear either a $75-plus-$75 initial arrangement or a $75 setup fee added to a separate $100 consultation allowance. It also does not establish a judicial holding that every pure setup charge must be credited against the annual consultation limit. Those are unresolved classifications and aggregation questions, not arithmetic questions. **[C002–C003]**\n\nThe enacted H.B. 699 amendment is useful because it confirms that the legislature added explicit **reasonableness** and **hardship-policy** requirements while retaining the relevant initial, annual, and periodic structure. Its operative amendment supplies no express stacking or setup-credit rule. The Senate-reported LSC analysis likewise discusses the added safeguards without resolving these allocation questions. The analysis is historical legislative material; it is not a current agency ruling. **[C008; S002, amendment to §4710.02, printed pp. 200–201; S003, printed p. 26]** [search-prod.lis.state.oh.us+1](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**Disposition:** Retain PASS-01 C019 and C020, including their aggregation limitations.\n\n### 2. Multiple weekly or other submonthly administration charges\n\nThe numerical comparison remains:\n\n**Periodic-fee comparison = greater of 8.5% of the identified monthly creditor-distribution payment base or $30.**\n\nThe statute expressly uses a monthly base. It does not expressly state, in the language examined, how multiple separately billed periodic fees within that month must be aggregated. **[C004; S001, §4710.02(B)(3); S002, printed pp. 200–201]** [Ohio Laws+1](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nTwo unsupported conclusions must remain outside the findings:\n\n1. That each weekly billing event automatically creates another full $30-or-percentage allowance; and\n2. That this pass has located a controlling decision expressly imposing one aggregate calendar-month ceiling across every separately characterized charge.\n\nNo such interpretation was established. **Splitting collection of an assumed single monthly fee into installments is also not evidence that separate weekly fees are authorized.**\n\nThe reasonableness and hardship requirements continue to constrain any otherwise applicable fee. In particular, the $30 branch is not proof that a debtor necessarily owes $30 regardless of service, circumstances, other legal conditions, or the required hardship policy. The policy requirement calls for an established and implemented mechanism allowing waiver or discontinuance when the debtor cannot pay; this pass does not recast that language as an automatic zero-fee rule for every asserted hardship. **[C001, C004]**\n\n**Disposition:** Repeated or submonthly billing remains held. The earlier examples assuming one identified monthly charge remain conditional.\n\n### 3. Fee-inclusive debit versus money paid for creditor distribution\n\nThe exact statutory phrase matters:\n\n“paid by the debtor each month for distribution to the debtor’s creditors”\n\nThat is a payment-purpose formulation. It does not expressly say that only creditor payments completed during that same calendar month count. **[C005; S001, §4710.02(B)(3)]** [Ohio Laws](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nThis clarification does not establish whether a bundled debit consists entirely of the statutory base. Three amounts should remain distinct:\n\n| Amount | What this pass establishes |\n| --- | --- |\n| Total consumer debit | Its existence alone does not establish the statutory denominator. |\n| Portion paid for creditor distribution | This is the purpose identified by the statutory wording; the allocation still must be established. |\n| Amount actually disbursed to creditors during the month | It is not automatically interchangeable with the payment-purpose amount. |\n\nSection 4710.02(A)(1) separately addresses disbursement of received funds, with subtraction of contributions not prohibited by division (B), and a debtor-instruction exception. That provision does not expressly reconcile the denominator in (B)(3) with a fee-inclusive debit. It therefore does not, by itself, establish permission to compute a fee on another retained fee. **[C006; S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B)(3)]**\n\nA potentially misleading case lead was examined: **FTC v. Leshin** discusses gross receipts and disgorgement. That discussion concerns a **civil-contempt remedy**, including fees associated with Ohio contracts and insurance noncompliance. It is not a construction of Ohio’s periodic-fee denominator. It supplies no basis for converting a gross consumer debit into the §4710.02(B)(3) base. **[C011; S007, printed pp. 29–33, especially pp. 32–33]** [media.ca11.uscourts.gov](https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**Disposition:** Preserve the fee-inclusive-debit hold. Append a wording guardrail to the prior denominator description, without replacing it with either an approved gross-base or an actual-disbursement-only rule.\n\n### 4. Stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success fees\n\nNo current controlling authority was established that specifies an independently available Ohio fee pathway for:\n\n- A percentage of negotiated savings;\n- A percentage of enrolled principal; or\n- A separate success fee for each resolved debt.\n\nThe absence of an express schedule does not establish either unrestricted permission or a universal prohibition. The prior hold remains the correct evidentiary disposition. A fee’s collection after success does not itself resolve its permissible state-law category or amount. **[C007; S001, §4710.02(A)(3), (B)]**\n\nThe strongest newly read material that could support a broader argument is an **Ohio Attorney General comment submitted to the FTC in 2009**. In discussing foreclosure-rescue services, the Attorney General supported restrictions on upfront fees and contemplated legitimate businesses charging after satisfactory results. That is relevant contrary context to an assertion that all post-result compensation is inherently forbidden. But the comment identifies no savings percentage, principal percentage, per-debt schedule, or method for reconciling such compensation with §4710.02(B). It is historical federal-rulemaking advocacy in a mortgage-assistance context, not a current Ohio fee authorization. **[C009; S004, printed pp. 3–4, “Prohibition on Upfront Fees”]** [ftc.gov](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nThe judicial and receivership materials do not supply the missing approval:\n\n| Material examined | Actual significance for this question |\n| --- | --- |\n| **Bumpus v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-4674** | The relevant discussion evaluates pleading sufficiency with allegations accepted as true. It does not decide a permissible success-fee formula. |\n| **Bumpus v. Ward, 2014-Ohio-267** | Subsequent procedural history holds that the voluntary dismissal became effective upon remand and that the plaintiff would have to recommence. It does not provide a later fee-merits judgment. |\n| **French v. Johnson Law Group**, July 9, 2012 | The document contains tentative proposed findings on bankruptcy and other pleaded theories. Describing a fee contract or rejecting those theories is not a §4710.02 approval. Final adoption was not verified. |\n| **StratFS receiver’s April 15, 2024 filing** | Its Ohio-cap reference is a receiver’s litigation position, not a judicial construction. Its abbreviated statement of the cap does not resolve the denominator or authorize a stand-alone success fee. |\n\n**[C010, C012–C013; S005–S006, S008–S009]** [supremecourt.ohio.gov+3](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**Disposition:** PASS-01 C024 remains held, including the absence of an established general lifetime settlement-fee cap. Neither industry fee descriptions nor the existence of a litigated contract supplies the missing legal permission.\n\n## B. Actual-source register — documents retrieved and relevant passages read\n\n**Access convention A:** October 23, 2026 UTC / October 22, 2026 Pacific. “Read” means the operative passages identified below were retrieved and examined. It does not mean every page of a lengthy bill was read.\n\nEach document has one source ID regardless of how many provisions are cited.\n\n| Source ID | Title / issuer and direct literal URL | Exact pinpoint and actual reading | Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations | Access |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_OH-P2-S001** | **Ohio Revised Code §4710.02**, Ohio Laws / official codification. [https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Full section retrieved; relevant clauses (A)(1), (A)(3)–(4), (B)(1)–(3), and (F). | Official page identifies effective **March 29, 2007**, latest legislation H.B. 699, 126th GA. Current displayed Ohio text; not an administrative interpretation of the ambiguities. [Ohio Laws](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A; final check approximately 06:47 UTC |\n| **S_OH-P2-S002** | **Am. Sub. H.B. 699, enrolled act**, Ohio General Assembly. [https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Section 101.01 amendment to §4710.02, **printed pp. 200–201**, PDF page indices 199–200. Relevant amendment read; not all 461 pages. | Enacted legislative text, not a pending proposal. Effective status of the codified section corroborated by S001. Amendment extraction includes old/new wording; clean current language taken from S001. [search-prod.lis.state.oh.us](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S003** | **Sub. H.B. 699 Bill Analysis, as reported by Senate Finance and Financial Institutions**, Ohio LSC. [https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | **Printed p. 26**, “Debt adjusting companies (R.C. 4710.02)”; cover/version caveat also read. | Historical committee-stage analysis of the 126th GA bill. Not the enacted text, adopted rule, or current agency interpretation. Cover warns that some legislative history may be incomplete. [search-prod.lis.state.oh.us+1](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S004** | **Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General, comment on Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rulemaking, R911003**, FTC-hosted official submission. [https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Five-page document retrieved; pertinent **printed pp. 3–4**, “Prohibition on Upfront Fees” and continuation. | **July 15, 2009**. Historical Ohio enforcement-office position submitted in federal rulemaking. Not a numbered formal AG opinion, adopted rule, or current authorization for a specified Ohio success fee. [ftc.gov](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S005** | **Bumpus v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-4674**, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. [https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | **¶¶16–18, printed p. 6**; surrounding procedural and alleged-fact context examined. | **October 9, 2012**, No. 2012-CA-5. Reversal/remand at pleading stage. No fee-formula merits holding. Subsequent procedural decision is S006; comprehensive later citator review not completed. [supremecourt.ohio.gov](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S006** | **Bumpus v. Ward, 2014-Ohio-267**, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. [https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Six-page opinion read; **¶¶8–12, 26–30**. | **January 22, 2014**, Nos. 13CA13 and 13CA14. Procedural reversal concerning voluntary dismissal. It recognizes jurisdiction over the earlier appeal; it does not erase the 2012 opinion or decide fee merits. Recommenced-action disposition not verified. [supremecourt.ohio.gov](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S007** | **FTC v. Leshin**, published Eleventh Circuit opinion. [https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf](https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Relevant **printed pp. 19–20 and 29–33**, particularly Ohio-related disgorgement discussion at pp. 32–33. | Filed **September 3, 2010**; federal appeal from Southern District of Florida. Civil-contempt/disgorgement decision, not an Ohio denominator holding. Later history not exhaustively checked; no current fee permission derived from it. [media.ca11.uscourts.gov+1](https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S008** | **French, Trustee v. Johnson Law Group**, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio. [https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf](https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | **pp. 1–2** status; **pp. 6–8** contract facts; **pp. 9–12** conclusions and amendment order. | **July 9, 2012**, Adv. No. 10-3390. Expressly **tentative proposed findings and conclusions**, plus order allowing amendment. No verified final district-court adoption; no §4710.02 fee approval established. [ohnb.uscourts.gov+1](https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n| **S_OH-P2-S009** | **Receiver’s Report re Protection of Consumers and Emergency Request for Instruction**, StratFS proceeding, receiver-hosted court filing. [https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf](https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | **Printed pp. 10–11**, especially **p. 11 n.3**; filed document header. | **Filed April 15, 2024**, W.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-00040, Doc. 292-1. Primary receiver filing, not a court opinion or official Ohio interpretation. No order adopting its Ohio fee characterization verified. [regulatoryresolutions.com](https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | A |\n\n### Status reconciliation\n\nThe operative current-law anchor is **S001**, corroborated by the relevant enacted amendment in **S002**. S003 is explanatory legislative history. S004 is a historical agency submission. S005–S008 are judicial documents with the procedural limitations stated above. S009 is a filed request.\n\nNone of the historical comment, proposed findings, or receiver’s requested position is elevated here into current binding fee permission. No newly read adopted regulation or adjudication resolving the four held questions was established.\n\n## C. Claim table\n\n| Claim ID | Precise assertion | Sources and pinpoints | Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_OH-P2-C001** | The official current section retains the statutory fee restrictions, reasonableness requirement, and required policy allowing waiver/discontinuance for inability to pay. | S001, §4710.02(A)(3)–(4), (B); S002, printed pp. 200–201. | High confidence in retrieved text. A numerical ceiling alone is not an entitlement to charge it. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C002** | The initial consultation-or-setup provision does not supply a verified separate allowance for each initial category. | S001, §4710.02(B)(1); S002, same amendment. | **Hold:** no controlling stacking interpretation established. This is not a holding that every possible separate-service arrangement is prohibited. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C003** | Initial consultation remains within the annual consultation category; treatment of a separately characterized setup charge under that annual limit remains unresolved. | S001, §4710.02(B)(1)–(2); S002, printed p. 200. | Initial-consultation treatment is textual application. Setup allocation and combined-service aggregation lack verified controlling interpretation. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C004** | The periodic comparison uses a monthly payment base and the greater-of operator; repeated submonthly billing does not have a verified fresh-allowance pathway. | S001, §4710.02(B)(3); S002, printed pp. 200–201. | **Hold:** no decision resolving repeated-charge aggregation was established. One-charge examples do not clear weekly billing. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C005** | The stated base concerns payments made for creditor distribution, rather than expressly requiring completed distribution in the same month. | S001, §4710.02(B)(3). | High confidence in wording; application to delayed distributions still depends on facts and other obligations. No permission to retain funds is inferred. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C006** | The subtraction language in the disbursement provision does not expressly determine whether retained fees belong in a bundled debit’s periodic-fee base. | S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B)(3). | **Hold:** neither gross-debit inclusion nor a complete netting methodology was established by controlling interpretation. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C007** | This pass establishes no stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success-fee pathway, and no general lifetime settlement-fee cap. | S001, §4710.02(A)(3), (B); S004–S009 as limited below. | Research-result limitation, not proof of universal prohibition or unlimited permission. No held success-fee example is released. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C008** | The enacted H.B. 699 amendment corroborates reasonableness and hardship safeguards but supplies no express answer to the four aggregation/base questions. | S002, printed pp. 200–201; S003, printed p. 26. | High confidence in relevant passages. Legislative analysis is historical explanatory material. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C009** | The 2009 Ohio AG comment contemplates legitimate post-result compensation but supplies no specific Ohio success-fee schedule. | S004, printed pp. 3–4. | Preserve as contrary context. Mortgage-assistance rulemaking advocacy; not current general settlement-fee permission. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C010** | The examined Bumpus opinions do not establish a permissible fee formula; the verified 2014 follow-up is procedural. | S005, ¶¶16–18; S006, ¶¶26–30. | No assertion that the 2012 opinion was overruled. Later merits proceedings, if any, remain unverified. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C011** | Leshin’s gross-receipts discussion concerns disgorgement and does not resolve §4710.02(B)(3)’s denominator. | S007, printed pp. 29–33. | Federal contempt context. No Ohio fee-base permission derived from the remedy. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C012** | French does not establish §4710.02 approval of its described fee contract. | S008, pp. 1–2, 6–12. | Tentative proposed findings on other theories; final adoption and later history unverified. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C013** | The StratFS receiver’s Ohio-cap reference is not a judicial interpretation resolving these questions. | S009, printed pp. 10–11, n.3. | Primary litigation filing only. Its abbreviated cap description is not substituted for the full statute. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C014** | No new authority warrants changing PASS-01 C026’s distinction between a fee ceiling and collection permission, or converting the debtor-instruction exception into fee-cap waiver. | S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B); supplied PASS-01 C026 and its federal-source dependency. | State text freshly checked. Federal TSR source and detailed federal triggers were **not reverified in PASS-02**. |\n| **S_OH-P2-C015** | Correct example arithmetic does not establish the unresolved legal denominator, aggregation, or success-fee premise. | C002–C007; supplied prior example-review boundary. | Methodological conclusion. Earlier arithmetic verification is attributed to the supplied review, not claimed as fresh work here. |\n\n## D. Actual earlier-claim patch map\n\n**No substantive fee-permission replacement is warranted.** The only addition is a denominator wording guardrail. These are proposed record dispositions in this visible answer; no original record has been edited.\n\n| Existing claim ID | Disposition | Exact retained qualification or proposed appended clarification | PASS-02 support |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_OH-P1-C019** | **Retain** | Retain the initial consultation/setup ceiling and the statement that stacking separate initial categories is not cleared. | C001–C002 |\n| **S_OH-P1-C020** | **Retain** | Retain annual consultation aggregation, including the initial consultation. Keep separate setup-fee credit against that limit unresolved. | C003 |\n| **S_OH-P1-C021** | **Retain; append wording guardrail** | “The distribution base must track amounts paid for creditor distribution. This record does not establish a requirement that the same funds already have been disbursed during that month, or resolve whether a fee-inclusive debit is the base.” | C004–C006 |\n| **S_OH-P1-C024** | **Retain hold** | No current stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success-fee authorization, or general lifetime settlement-fee cap, was established. Silence remains insufficient to establish unlimited permission or universal prohibition. | C007, C009–C013 |\n| **S_OH-P1-C025** | **Retain hold; append base clarification** | Initial stacking, bundled-debit allocation, repeated submonthly billing, and statutory rounding remain unresolved. Add: “Payment for distribution and actual distribution during the same month are not assumed to be identical.” | C002–C006 |\n| **S_OH-P1-C026** | **Retain unchanged** | State ceiling and independently applicable collection timing remain separate; debtor instructions concerning disbursement do not establish fee-cap waiver. Federal support remains carried from PASS-01. | C014 |\n\n### Example disposition\n\n**No new worked fee example is warranted because no held legal premise was cleared.** The following records preserve the earlier conditional boundaries rather than re-presenting arithmetic as new verification.\n\n| Earlier example type | PASS-02 disposition |\n| --- | --- |\n| Initial consultation followed by another consultation in the same calendar year | Retain only for charges actually classified as consultation. It does not answer separate setup aggregation. |\n| Lower-payment and higher-payment comparisons using the greater-of formula | Retain the assumed single-charge structure and identified payment-purpose base. Do not substitute a bundled debit automatically. |\n| Previous fee credited against the same modeled monthly charge | Retain the explicit “same charge” assumption. It does not establish the law for multiple separately assessed weekly fees. |\n| Fractional-cent percentage result | No statutory rounding convention was established; do not upgrade conservative arithmetic into a statutory rounding rule. |\n| Partial settlement or savings-based success-fee illustration | Remains held for state authorization. Correct arithmetic or satisfaction of another jurisdiction’s timing conditions does not release it. |\n| Federal timing or cancellation illustration | No new federal or cancellation analysis in this pass; earlier conditions and unresolved dependencies remain attached. |\n\n## E. Failed routes — excluded from the actual-source register\n\nThese are the **material failed or unreliable retrieval routes**, not authorities supporting a fee conclusion. Alternate aliases and irrelevant search hits are omitted. Attempts occurred during access convention A.\n\n| Route and direct literal URL | Observed limitation | Exact next evidence needed |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Ohio AG **Debt Adjusters Act business guide**: [https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected/inaccessible. Search discovery did not supply a reliably read operative interpretation. | Retrieve the complete official guide and determine whether it expressly addresses aggregation or gross/net allocation. |\n| Ohio AG **2018 credit-repair/debt-settlement article**: [https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected. Snippet language concerning per-debt fees was not treated as an Ohio amount authorization. | Read the complete article, distinguish its federal discussion from Ohio law, and follow any cited primary authority. |\n| Ohio AG **consumer-law business guide**: [https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx) | Official route inaccessible. | Obtain the complete dated edition and any superseding official interpretation; a general guide would still not substitute for controlling text. |\n| **Rabel** public-inspection PDF: [https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf](https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Intermittent partial retrieval in one research track; subsequent reopening failed. Complete order and status were not reliably verified. | Retrieve the full official order in **State v. Michael A. Rabel & Associates, Franklin No. 16CV3046**, then check the docket and identify whether any fee ruling actually addresses these distinctions. |\n| **Equitable Century** public-inspection PDF: [https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf](https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected. | Obtain the complete order, underlying fee findings, and later docket status before using it as an interpretation. |\n| **Moarefian** public-inspection PDF: [https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf](https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected. | Obtain the complete official order and distinguish prohibited upfront charges from any post-performance fee issue. |\n| **Credence** public-inspection PDF: [https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf](https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected. | Read complete findings and operative relief, then determine whether aggregation or denominator construction was decided. |\n| **Nelson complaint** route: [https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Request rejected; identified material is a complaint lead, not an adjudication. | Retrieve complaint and final disposition; allegations alone cannot establish a controlling fee rule. |\n| Official **Webster/Freedom Debt Relief** federal-document routes: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf) and [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf) | Official documents not successfully retrieved. Secondary procedural leads were not used as fee authority. | Obtain official opinions and any fee-merits disposition; do not infer fee approval from arbitration proceedings. |\n\nNo contact, purchase, CAPTCHA workaround, permission expansion, or private docket access was used to overcome these failures.\n\n## F. Dependency crosswalk — carried findings and unverified dependencies\n\n| Dependency | Treatment in PASS-02 | What remains dependent or unverified |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Supplied **PASS-01 S001 / §4710.02** | Freshly reread as **S_OH-P2-S001**. | New source ID identifies this pass’s verification, not a different statutory document for each subsection. |\n| Supplied **PASS-01 C019–C021 and C024–C026** | Retained under their original claim IDs in the patch map. | No raw-original edits or implied expansion of prior clearance. |\n| Supplied **PASS-01 S010, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(5)** | Carried only as the existing federal dependency of C026. | Exact federal text, applicability, and current status were not reopened here. No new federal timing conclusion is presented. |\n| Earlier example arithmetic and coordinator scope review | Reused with attribution to the supplied record. | Neither is represented as fresh arithmetic verification or independent review. |\n| Rabel partial extraction | Discovery/dependency only; excluded from substantive authority supporting a cleared fee pathway. | Complete source, reliable date, operative disposition, and later history remain necessary. |\n| Bumpus later proceedings | The 2014 procedural opinion was freshly read. | No recommenced-action fee-merits judgment verified. |\n| French and StratFS later proceedings | Original document status was identified and limited. | Final adoption of proposed findings, or a judicial ruling adopting the receiver’s Ohio interpretation, was not established. |\n| Other Ohio access, exemption, CSO, and federal findings | Outside this followup. | No renewal or implied acceptance of their completeness or currentness. |\n\n## G. Component coverage and exact remaining investigations\n\n| Component | Status after PASS-02 | Claim IDs | Missing evidence / exact next investigation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Current displayed §4710.02 text and governing numerical structure | **Answered within this pass** | C001, C004, C008 | No additional arithmetic work needed. Future-currentness checks should return to the official codification and any enacted replacement. |\n| Initial consultation included in annual consultation category | **Answered as textual application** | C003 | No judicial construction located; do not extend this application automatically to pure setup services. |\n| Separate initial setup and consultation stacking | **Unresolved / held** | C002–C003 | Locate a full Ohio adjudication or official interpretation addressing both categories, service classification, and credit against the annual limit. |\n| Multiple weekly/submonthly charges | **Unresolved / held** | C004 | Obtain authority deciding whether separate periodic charges aggregate and how monthly payment bases apply across billing events. |\n| Payment-purpose base versus same-month completed disbursement | **Partially answered** | C005 | Wording is clarified. Any disputed application involving delayed or accumulated distributions still requires authority and complete facts. |\n| Fee-inclusive debit denominator | **Unresolved / held** | C006, C011 | Find a decision or official interpretation explicitly distinguishing gross debit, retained fee, and funds designated for creditors. |\n| Stand-alone savings/principal/per-debt success fee | **Unresolved / held** | C007, C009–C013 | Read complete enforcement orders and locate any merits decision expressly approving or rejecting such a fee after performance under current §4710.02. |\n| Reasonableness and hardship safeguards | **Text verified; no broader implementation clearance** | C001, C008 | A specific billing model would still need a supportable policy and application; no automatic entitlement to the ceiling is established. |\n| Statutory rounding | **Unresolved; not newly cleared** | C015; prior C025 | An express official rounding rule or adjudicated method remains missing. |\n| Collection timing / PASS-01 C026 | **Preserved; federal dependency carried** | C014 | No new timing research required by this narrow pass; reopen exact federal provisions before asserting new federal conclusions. |\n| Current CSO procedure or provider authorization | **Held / excluded by scope** | — | Separate authorized pass must verify current procedure and any provider-specific status. |\n| Agreement, funds, bond, remedies, collection, litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, and broader case law | **Open / excluded by scope** | — | Continue the later dossier passes. Nothing here constitutes Ohio or A066 acceptance. |\n\n## H. Researcher self-check\n\n**Actually read:** Current §4710.02; the pertinent enrolled H.B. 699 amendment; the relevant LSC analysis; the 2009 Ohio AG comment; relevant passages in the 2012 Bumpus opinion and the 2014 procedural follow-up; the pertinent Leshin analysis; French’s document status and conclusions; and the receiver’s Ohio-cap passage in StratFS.\n\n**Not claimed as read or resolved:** Every page of the 461-page act or 85-page analysis; complete inaccessible AG guides and enforcement PDFs; a comprehensive citator history; a later Bumpus merits case; final adoption of French’s proposed findings; or a judicial adoption of the StratFS receiver’s Ohio characterization.\n\nThe research used ordinary public-web retrieval in this conversation. No separate regular Chat conversations or verified chatgpt.com model-selector setting are claimed. Parallel research contributions were synthesized into this answer; that process is **not independent review**.\n\nNo local writes, publication, provider authorization, CSO clearance, or publication readiness are claimed. **The continuation boundary remains the four expressly held fee questions and the specific missing evidence identified above. All other Ohio dossier categories remain open.**\n\nEND S_OH PASS-02.\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Amount","What this pass establishes"],"index":0,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Amount","What this pass establishes"],["Total consumer debit","Its existence alone does not establish the statutory denominator."],["Portion paid for creditor distribution","This is the purpose identified by the statutory wording; the allocation still must be established."],["Amount actually disbursed to creditors during the month","It is not automatically interchangeable with the payment-purpose amount."]]},{"headers":["Material examined","Actual significance for this question"],"index":1,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Material examined","Actual significance for this question"],["Bumpus v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-4674","The relevant discussion evaluates pleading sufficiency with allegations accepted as true. It does not decide a permissible success-fee formula."],["Bumpus v. Ward, 2014-Ohio-267","Subsequent procedural history holds that the voluntary dismissal became effective upon remand and that the plaintiff would have to recommence. It does not provide a later fee-merits judgment."],["French v. Johnson Law Group, July 9, 2012","The document contains tentative proposed findings on bankruptcy and other pleaded theories. Describing a fee contract or rejecting those theories is not a §4710.02 approval. Final adoption was not verified."],["StratFS receiver’s April 15, 2024 filing","Its Ohio-cap reference is a receiver’s litigation position, not a judicial construction. Its abbreviated statement of the cap does not resolve the denominator or authorize a stand-alone success fee."]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Title / issuer and direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and actual reading","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations","Access"],"index":2,"links":[{"href":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02"},{"href":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Ohio Laws"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"search-prod.lis.state.oh.us"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"search-prod.lis.state.oh.us\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"ftc.gov"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"supremecourt.ohio.gov"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"supremecourt.ohio.gov"},{"href":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf"},{"href":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"media.ca11.uscourts.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"ohnb.uscourts.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf"},{"href":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"regulatoryresolutions.com"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02"},{"href":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"Ohio Laws"}],[{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"search-prod.lis.state.oh.us"}],[{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/"},{"href":"https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"search-prod.lis.state.oh.us\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"ftc.gov"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"supremecourt.ohio.gov"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"supremecourt.ohio.gov"}],[{"href":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf"},{"href":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"media.ca11.uscourts.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"ohnb.uscourts.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf"},{"href":"https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"regulatoryresolutions.com"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Title / issuer and direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and actual reading","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations","Access"],["S_OH-P2-S001","Ohio Revised Code §4710.02, Ohio Laws / official codification. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02","Full section retrieved; relevant clauses (A)(1), (A)(3)–(4), (B)(1)–(3), and (F).","Official page identifies effective March 29, 2007, latest legislation H.B. 699, 126th GA. Current displayed Ohio text; not an administrative interpretation of the ambiguities. \nOhio Laws","A; final check approximately 06:47 UTC"],["S_OH-P2-S002","Am. Sub. H.B. 699, enrolled act, Ohio General Assembly. https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/","Section 101.01 amendment to §4710.02, printed pp. 200–201, PDF page indices 199–200. Relevant amendment read; not all 461 pages.","Enacted legislative text, not a pending proposal. Effective status of the codified section corroborated by S001. Amendment extraction includes old/new wording; clean current language taken from S001. \nsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us","A"],["S_OH-P2-S003","Sub. H.B. 699 Bill Analysis, as reported by Senate Finance and Financial Institutions, Ohio LSC. https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/","Printed p. 26, “Debt adjusting companies (R.C. 4710.02)”; cover/version caveat also read.","Historical committee-stage analysis of the 126th GA bill. Not the enacted text, adopted rule, or current agency interpretation. Cover warns that some legislative history may be incomplete. \nsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us\n+1","A"],["S_OH-P2-S004","Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General, comment on Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rulemaking, R911003, FTC-hosted official submission. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf","Five-page document retrieved; pertinent printed pp. 3–4, “Prohibition on Upfront Fees” and continuation.","July 15, 2009. Historical Ohio enforcement-office position submitted in federal rulemaking. Not a numbered formal AG opinion, adopted rule, or current authorization for a specified Ohio success fee. \nftc.gov","A"],["S_OH-P2-S005","Bumpus v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-4674, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf","¶¶16–18, printed p. 6; surrounding procedural and alleged-fact context examined.","October 9, 2012, No. 2012-CA-5. Reversal/remand at pleading stage. No fee-formula merits holding. Subsequent procedural decision is S006; comprehensive later citator review not completed. \nsupremecourt.ohio.gov","A"],["S_OH-P2-S006","Bumpus v. Ward, 2014-Ohio-267, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf","Six-page opinion read; ¶¶8–12, 26–30.","January 22, 2014, Nos. 13CA13 and 13CA14. Procedural reversal concerning voluntary dismissal. It recognizes jurisdiction over the earlier appeal; it does not erase the 2012 opinion or decide fee merits. Recommenced-action disposition not verified. \nsupremecourt.ohio.gov","A"],["S_OH-P2-S007","FTC v. Leshin, published Eleventh Circuit opinion. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf","Relevant printed pp. 19–20 and 29–33, particularly Ohio-related disgorgement discussion at pp. 32–33.","Filed September 3, 2010; federal appeal from Southern District of Florida. Civil-contempt/disgorgement decision, not an Ohio denominator holding. Later history not exhaustively checked; no current fee permission derived from it. \nmedia.ca11.uscourts.gov\n+1","A"],["S_OH-P2-S008","French, Trustee v. Johnson Law Group, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio. https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf","pp. 1–2 status; pp. 6–8 contract facts; pp. 9–12 conclusions and amendment order.","July 9, 2012, Adv. No. 10-3390. Expressly tentative proposed findings and conclusions, plus order allowing amendment. No verified final district-court adoption; no §4710.02 fee approval established. \nohnb.uscourts.gov\n+1","A"],["S_OH-P2-S009","Receiver’s Report re Protection of Consumers and Emergency Request for Instruction, StratFS proceeding, receiver-hosted court filing. https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf","Printed pp. 10–11, especially p. 11 n.3; filed document header.","Filed April 15, 2024, W.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-00040, Doc. 292-1. Primary receiver filing, not a court opinion or official Ohio interpretation. No order adopting its Ohio fee characterization verified. \nregulatoryresolutions.com","A"]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources and pinpoints","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits"],"index":3,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources and pinpoints","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits"],["S_OH-P2-C001","The official current section retains the statutory fee restrictions, reasonableness requirement, and required policy allowing waiver/discontinuance for inability to pay.","S001, §4710.02(A)(3)–(4), (B); S002, printed pp. 200–201.","High confidence in retrieved text. A numerical ceiling alone is not an entitlement to charge it."],["S_OH-P2-C002","The initial consultation-or-setup provision does not supply a verified separate allowance for each initial category.","S001, §4710.02(B)(1); S002, same amendment.","Hold: no controlling stacking interpretation established. This is not a holding that every possible separate-service arrangement is prohibited."],["S_OH-P2-C003","Initial consultation remains within the annual consultation category; treatment of a separately characterized setup charge under that annual limit remains unresolved.","S001, §4710.02(B)(1)–(2); S002, printed p. 200.","Initial-consultation treatment is textual application. Setup allocation and combined-service aggregation lack verified controlling interpretation."],["S_OH-P2-C004","The periodic comparison uses a monthly payment base and the greater-of operator; repeated submonthly billing does not have a verified fresh-allowance pathway.","S001, §4710.02(B)(3); S002, printed pp. 200–201.","Hold: no decision resolving repeated-charge aggregation was established. One-charge examples do not clear weekly billing."],["S_OH-P2-C005","The stated base concerns payments made for creditor distribution, rather than expressly requiring completed distribution in the same month.","S001, §4710.02(B)(3).","High confidence in wording; application to delayed distributions still depends on facts and other obligations. No permission to retain funds is inferred."],["S_OH-P2-C006","The subtraction language in the disbursement provision does not expressly determine whether retained fees belong in a bundled debit’s periodic-fee base.","S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B)(3).","Hold: neither gross-debit inclusion nor a complete netting methodology was established by controlling interpretation."],["S_OH-P2-C007","This pass establishes no stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success-fee pathway, and no general lifetime settlement-fee cap.","S001, §4710.02(A)(3), (B); S004–S009 as limited below.","Research-result limitation, not proof of universal prohibition or unlimited permission. No held success-fee example is released."],["S_OH-P2-C008","The enacted H.B. 699 amendment corroborates reasonableness and hardship safeguards but supplies no express answer to the four aggregation/base questions.","S002, printed pp. 200–201; S003, printed p. 26.","High confidence in relevant passages. Legislative analysis is historical explanatory material."],["S_OH-P2-C009","The 2009 Ohio AG comment contemplates legitimate post-result compensation but supplies no specific Ohio success-fee schedule.","S004, printed pp. 3–4.","Preserve as contrary context. Mortgage-assistance rulemaking advocacy; not current general settlement-fee permission."],["S_OH-P2-C010","The examined Bumpus opinions do not establish a permissible fee formula; the verified 2014 follow-up is procedural.","S005, ¶¶16–18; S006, ¶¶26–30.","No assertion that the 2012 opinion was overruled. Later merits proceedings, if any, remain unverified."],["S_OH-P2-C011","Leshin’s gross-receipts discussion concerns disgorgement and does not resolve §4710.02(B)(3)’s denominator.","S007, printed pp. 29–33.","Federal contempt context. No Ohio fee-base permission derived from the remedy."],["S_OH-P2-C012","French does not establish §4710.02 approval of its described fee contract.","S008, pp. 1–2, 6–12.","Tentative proposed findings on other theories; final adoption and later history unverified."],["S_OH-P2-C013","The StratFS receiver’s Ohio-cap reference is not a judicial interpretation resolving these questions.","S009, printed pp. 10–11, n.3.","Primary litigation filing only. Its abbreviated cap description is not substituted for the full statute."],["S_OH-P2-C014","No new authority warrants changing PASS-01 C026’s distinction between a fee ceiling and collection permission, or converting the debtor-instruction exception into fee-cap waiver.","S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B); supplied PASS-01 C026 and its federal-source dependency.","State text freshly checked. Federal TSR source and detailed federal triggers were not reverified in PASS-02."],["S_OH-P2-C015","Correct example arithmetic does not establish the unresolved legal denominator, aggregation, or success-fee premise.","C002–C007; supplied prior example-review boundary.","Methodological conclusion. Earlier arithmetic verification is attributed to the supplied review, not claimed as fresh work here."]]},{"headers":["Existing claim ID","Disposition","Exact retained qualification or proposed appended clarification","PASS-02 support"],"index":4,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Existing claim ID","Disposition","Exact retained qualification or proposed appended clarification","PASS-02 support"],["S_OH-P1-C019","Retain","Retain the initial consultation/setup ceiling and the statement that stacking separate initial categories is not cleared.","C001–C002"],["S_OH-P1-C020","Retain","Retain annual consultation aggregation, including the initial consultation. Keep separate setup-fee credit against that limit unresolved.","C003"],["S_OH-P1-C021","Retain; append wording guardrail","“The distribution base must track amounts paid for creditor distribution. This record does not establish a requirement that the same funds already have been disbursed during that month, or resolve whether a fee-inclusive debit is the base.”","C004–C006"],["S_OH-P1-C024","Retain hold","No current stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success-fee authorization, or general lifetime settlement-fee cap, was established. Silence remains insufficient to establish unlimited permission or universal prohibition.","C007, C009–C013"],["S_OH-P1-C025","Retain hold; append base clarification","Initial stacking, bundled-debit allocation, repeated submonthly billing, and statutory rounding remain unresolved. Add: “Payment for distribution and actual distribution during the same month are not assumed to be identical.”","C002–C006"],["S_OH-P1-C026","Retain unchanged","State ceiling and independently applicable collection timing remain separate; debtor instructions concerning disbursement do not establish fee-cap waiver. Federal support remains carried from PASS-01.","C014"]]},{"headers":["Earlier example type","PASS-02 disposition"],"index":5,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Earlier example type","PASS-02 disposition"],["Initial consultation followed by another consultation in the same calendar year","Retain only for charges actually classified as consultation. It does not answer separate setup aggregation."],["Lower-payment and higher-payment comparisons using the greater-of formula","Retain the assumed single-charge structure and identified payment-purpose base. Do not substitute a bundled debit automatically."],["Previous fee credited against the same modeled monthly charge","Retain the explicit “same charge” assumption. It does not establish the law for multiple separately assessed weekly fees."],["Fractional-cent percentage result","No statutory rounding convention was established; do not upgrade conservative arithmetic into a statutory rounding rule."],["Partial settlement or savings-based success-fee illustration","Remains held for state authorization. Correct arithmetic or satisfaction of another jurisdiction’s timing conditions does not release it."],["Federal timing or cancellation illustration","No new federal or cancellation analysis in this pass; earlier conditions and unresolved dependencies remain attached."]]},{"headers":["Route and direct literal URL","Observed limitation","Exact next evidence needed"],"index":6,"links":[{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act"},{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement"},{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx"},{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf"},{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf"},{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf"},{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act"}],[{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement"}],[{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx"}],[{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf"}]],"rows":[["Route and direct literal URL","Observed limitation","Exact next evidence needed"],["Ohio AG Debt Adjusters Act business guide: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Business/Services-for-Business/Business-Guide/Debt-Adjusters-Act","Request rejected/inaccessible. Search discovery did not supply a reliably read operative interpretation.","Retrieve the complete official guide and determine whether it expressly addresses aggregation or gross/net allocation."],["Ohio AG 2018 credit-repair/debt-settlement article: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Consumer-Advocate/February-2018/Know-More-About-Credit-Repair-and-Debt-Settlement","Request rejected. Snippet language concerning per-debt fees was not treated as an Ohio amount authorization.","Read the complete article, distinguish its federal discussion from Ohio law, and follow any cited primary authority."],["Ohio AG consumer-law business guide: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Business/Complying-With-Ohio-Consumer-Law-A-Guide-for-Busin.aspx","Official route inaccessible.","Obtain the complete dated edition and any superseding official interpretation; a general guide would still not substitute for controlling text."],["Rabel public-inspection PDF: https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3294.pdf","Intermittent partial retrieval in one research track; subsequent reopening failed. Complete order and status were not reliably verified.","Retrieve the full official order in State v. Michael A. Rabel & Associates, Franklin No. 16CV3046, then check the docket and identify whether any fee ruling actually addresses these distinctions."],["Equitable Century public-inspection PDF: https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3368.pdf","Request rejected.","Obtain the complete order, underlying fee findings, and later docket status before using it as an interpretation."],["Moarefian public-inspection PDF: https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3260.pdf","Request rejected.","Obtain the complete official order and distinguish prohibited upfront charges from any post-performance fee issue."],["Credence public-inspection PDF: https://opif.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/opifimages/PIF3190.pdf","Request rejected.","Read complete findings and operative relief, then determine whether aggregation or denominator construction was decided."],["Nelson complaint route: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/March-2012/Attorney-General-DeWine-Sues-California-Man-for-Op/Nelson-lawsuit.aspx","Request rejected; identified material is a complaint lead, not an adjudication.","Retrieve complaint and final disposition; allegations alone cannot establish a controlling fee rule."],["Official Webster/Freedom Debt Relief federal-document routes: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_12-cv-01654-0.pdf and https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_10-cv-01587-0.pdf","Official documents not successfully retrieved. Secondary procedural leads were not used as fee authority.","Obtain official opinions and any fee-merits disposition; do not infer fee approval from arbitration proceedings."]]},{"headers":["Dependency","Treatment in PASS-02","What remains dependent or unverified"],"index":7,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Dependency","Treatment in PASS-02","What remains dependent or unverified"],["Supplied PASS-01 S001 / §4710.02","Freshly reread as S_OH-P2-S001.","New source ID identifies this pass’s verification, not a different statutory document for each subsection."],["Supplied PASS-01 C019–C021 and C024–C026","Retained under their original claim IDs in the patch map.","No raw-original edits or implied expansion of prior clearance."],["Supplied PASS-01 S010, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(5)","Carried only as the existing federal dependency of C026.","Exact federal text, applicability, and current status were not reopened here. No new federal timing conclusion is presented."],["Earlier example arithmetic and coordinator scope review","Reused with attribution to the supplied record.","Neither is represented as fresh arithmetic verification or independent review."],["Rabel partial extraction","Discovery/dependency only; excluded from substantive authority supporting a cleared fee pathway.","Complete source, reliable date, operative disposition, and later history remain necessary."],["Bumpus later proceedings","The 2014 procedural opinion was freshly read.","No recommenced-action fee-merits judgment verified."],["French and StratFS later proceedings","Original document status was identified and limited.","Final adoption of proposed findings, or a judicial ruling adopting the receiver’s Ohio interpretation, was not established."],["Other Ohio access, exemption, CSO, and federal findings","Outside this followup.","No renewal or implied acceptance of their completeness or currentness."]]},{"headers":["Component","Status after PASS-02","Claim IDs","Missing evidence / exact next investigation"],"index":8,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Component","Status after PASS-02","Claim IDs","Missing evidence / exact next investigation"],["Current displayed §4710.02 text and governing numerical structure","Answered within this pass","C001, C004, C008","No additional arithmetic work needed. Future-currentness checks should return to the official codification and any enacted replacement."],["Initial consultation included in annual consultation category","Answered as textual application","C003","No judicial construction located; do not extend this application automatically to pure setup services."],["Separate initial setup and consultation stacking","Unresolved / held","C002–C003","Locate a full Ohio adjudication or official interpretation addressing both categories, service classification, and credit against the annual limit."],["Multiple weekly/submonthly charges","Unresolved / held","C004","Obtain authority deciding whether separate periodic charges aggregate and how monthly payment bases apply across billing events."],["Payment-purpose base versus same-month completed disbursement","Partially answered","C005","Wording is clarified. Any disputed application involving delayed or accumulated distributions still requires authority and complete facts."],["Fee-inclusive debit denominator","Unresolved / held","C006, C011","Find a decision or official interpretation explicitly distinguishing gross debit, retained fee, and funds designated for creditors."],["Stand-alone savings/principal/per-debt success fee","Unresolved / held","C007, C009–C013","Read complete enforcement orders and locate any merits decision expressly approving or rejecting such a fee after performance under current §4710.02."],["Reasonableness and hardship safeguards","Text verified; no broader implementation clearance","C001, C008","A specific billing model would still need a supportable policy and application; no automatic entitlement to the ceiling is established."],["Statutory rounding","Unresolved; not newly cleared","C015; prior C025","An express official rounding rule or adjudicated method remains missing."],["Collection timing / PASS-01 C026","Preserved; federal dependency carried","C014","No new timing research required by this narrow pass; reopen exact federal provisions before asserting new federal conclusions."],["Current CSO procedure or provider authorization","Held / excluded by scope","—","Separate authorized pass must verify current procedure and any provider-specific status."],["Agreement, funds, bond, remedies, collection, litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, and broader case law","Open / excluded by scope","—","Continue the later dossier passes. Nothing here constitutes Ohio or A066 acceptance."]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C001","Precise assertion":"The official current section retains the statutory fee restrictions, reasonableness requirement, and required policy allowing waiver/discontinuance for inability to pay.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(A)(3)–(4), (B); S002, printed pp. 200–201.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"High confidence in retrieved text. A numerical ceiling alone is not an entitlement to charge it."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C002","Precise assertion":"The initial consultation-or-setup provision does not supply a verified separate allowance for each initial category.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(B)(1); S002, same amendment.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Hold: no controlling stacking interpretation established. This is not a holding that every possible separate-service arrangement is prohibited."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C003","Precise assertion":"Initial consultation remains within the annual consultation category; treatment of a separately characterized setup charge under that annual limit remains unresolved.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(B)(1)–(2); S002, printed p. 200.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Initial-consultation treatment is textual application. Setup allocation and combined-service aggregation lack verified controlling interpretation."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C004","Precise assertion":"The periodic comparison uses a monthly payment base and the greater-of operator; repeated submonthly billing does not have a verified fresh-allowance pathway.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(B)(3); S002, printed pp. 200–201.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Hold: no decision resolving repeated-charge aggregation was established. One-charge examples do not clear weekly billing."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C005","Precise assertion":"The stated base concerns payments made for creditor distribution, rather than expressly requiring completed distribution in the same month.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(B)(3).","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"High confidence in wording; application to delayed distributions still depends on facts and other obligations. No permission to retain funds is inferred."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C006","Precise assertion":"The subtraction language in the disbursement provision does not expressly determine whether retained fees belong in a bundled debit’s periodic-fee base.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B)(3).","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Hold: neither gross-debit inclusion nor a complete netting methodology was established by controlling interpretation."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C007","Precise assertion":"This pass establishes no stand-alone savings-, principal-, or per-debt success-fee pathway, and no general lifetime settlement-fee cap.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(A)(3), (B); S004–S009 as limited below.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Research-result limitation, not proof of universal prohibition or unlimited permission. No held success-fee example is released."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C008","Precise assertion":"The enacted H.B. 699 amendment corroborates reasonableness and hardship safeguards but supplies no express answer to the four aggregation/base questions.","Sources and pinpoints":"S002, printed pp. 200–201; S003, printed p. 26.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"High confidence in relevant passages. Legislative analysis is historical explanatory material."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C009","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C009","Precise assertion":"The 2009 Ohio AG comment contemplates legitimate post-result compensation but supplies no specific Ohio success-fee schedule.","Sources and pinpoints":"S004, printed pp. 3–4.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Preserve as contrary context. Mortgage-assistance rulemaking advocacy; not current general settlement-fee permission."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C010","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C010","Precise assertion":"The examined Bumpus opinions do not establish a permissible fee formula; the verified 2014 follow-up is procedural.","Sources and pinpoints":"S005, ¶¶16–18; S006, ¶¶26–30.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"No assertion that the 2012 opinion was overruled. Later merits proceedings, if any, remain unverified."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C011","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C011","Precise assertion":"Leshin’s gross-receipts discussion concerns disgorgement and does not resolve §4710.02(B)(3)’s denominator.","Sources and pinpoints":"S007, printed pp. 29–33.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Federal contempt context. No Ohio fee-base permission derived from the remedy."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C012","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C012","Precise assertion":"French does not establish §4710.02 approval of its described fee contract.","Sources and pinpoints":"S008, pp. 1–2, 6–12.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Tentative proposed findings on other theories; final adoption and later history unverified."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C013","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C013","Precise assertion":"The StratFS receiver’s Ohio-cap reference is not a judicial interpretation resolving these questions.","Sources and pinpoints":"S009, printed pp. 10–11, n.3.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Primary litigation filing only. Its abbreviated cap description is not substituted for the full statute."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C014","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C014","Precise assertion":"No new authority warrants changing PASS-01 C026’s distinction between a fee ceiling and collection permission, or converting the debtor-instruction exception into fee-cap waiver.","Sources and pinpoints":"S001, §4710.02(A)(1), (B); supplied PASS-01 C026 and its federal-source dependency.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"State text freshly checked. Federal TSR source and detailed federal triggers were not reverified in PASS-02."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_OH-P2-C015","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_OH-P2-C015","Precise assertion":"Correct example arithmetic does not establish the unresolved legal denominator, aggregation, or success-fee premise.","Sources and pinpoints":"C002–C007; supplied prior example-review boundary.","Conditions, exceptions, currentness, and confidence limits":"Methodological conclusion. Earlier arithmetic verification is attributed to the supplied review, not claimed as fresh work here."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S001","urls":["https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02","https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S001","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Ohio Revised Code §4710.02, Ohio Laws / official codification. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4710.02","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Full section retrieved; relevant clauses (A)(1), (A)(3)–(4), (B)(1)–(3), and (F).","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"Official page identifies effective March 29, 2007, latest legislation H.B. 699, 126th GA. Current displayed Ohio text; not an administrative interpretation of the ambiguities. \nOhio Laws","Access":"A; final check approximately 06:47 UTC"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S002","urls":["https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/","https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S002","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Am. Sub. H.B. 699, enrolled act, Ohio General Assembly. https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/05_EN/pdf/","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Section 101.01 amendment to §4710.02, printed pp. 200–201, PDF page indices 199–200. Relevant amendment read; not all 461 pages.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"Enacted legislative text, not a pending proposal. Effective status of the codified section corroborated by S001. Amendment extraction includes old/new wording; clean current language taken from S001. \nsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S003","urls":["https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/","https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S003","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Sub. H.B. 699 Bill Analysis, as reported by Senate Finance and Financial Institutions, Ohio LSC. https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_126/legislation/hb699/supporting_documents/an_126_hb699rs/pdf/","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Printed p. 26, “Debt adjusting companies (R.C. 4710.02)”; cover/version caveat also read.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"Historical committee-stage analysis of the 126th GA bill. Not the enacted text, adopted rule, or current agency interpretation. Cover warns that some legislative history may be incomplete. \nsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us\n+1","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S004","urls":["https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf","https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S004","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General, comment on Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rulemaking, R911003, FTC-hosted official submission. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-parts-317-and-318-mortgage-assistance-relief-services-rulemaking-542309-00028/542309-00028.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Five-page document retrieved; pertinent printed pp. 3–4, “Prohibition on Upfront Fees” and continuation.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"July 15, 2009. Historical Ohio enforcement-office position submitted in federal rulemaking. Not a numbered formal AG opinion, adopted rule, or current authorization for a specified Ohio success fee. \nftc.gov","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S005","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S005","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Bumpus v. Ward, 2012-Ohio-4674, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2012/2012-ohio-4674.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"¶¶16–18, printed p. 6; surrounding procedural and alleged-fact context examined.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"October 9, 2012, No. 2012-CA-5. Reversal/remand at pleading stage. No fee-formula merits holding. Subsequent procedural decision is S006; comprehensive later citator review not completed. \nsupremecourt.ohio.gov","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S006","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S006","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Bumpus v. Ward, 2014-Ohio-267, Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-Ohio-267.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Six-page opinion read; ¶¶8–12, 26–30.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"January 22, 2014, Nos. 13CA13 and 13CA14. Procedural reversal concerning voluntary dismissal. It recognizes jurisdiction over the earlier appeal; it does not erase the 2012 opinion or decide fee merits. Recommenced-action disposition not verified. \nsupremecourt.ohio.gov","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S007","urls":["https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf","https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S007","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"FTC v. Leshin, published Eleventh Circuit opinion. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911679.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Relevant printed pp. 19–20 and 29–33, particularly Ohio-related disgorgement discussion at pp. 32–33.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"Filed September 3, 2010; federal appeal from Southern District of Florida. Civil-contempt/disgorgement decision, not an Ohio denominator holding. Later history not exhaustively checked; no current fee permission derived from it. \nmedia.ca11.uscourts.gov\n+1","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S008","urls":["https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf","https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S008","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"French, Trustee v. Johnson Law Group, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio. https://www.ohnb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/op-20120709-re-french-trustee-v-johnson-law-group-doc8-maw-10-03390.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"pp. 1–2 status; pp. 6–8 contract facts; pp. 9–12 conclusions and amendment order.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"July 9, 2012, Adv. No. 10-3390. Expressly tentative proposed findings and conclusions, plus order allowing amendment. No verified final district-court adoption; no §4710.02 fee approval established. \nohnb.uscourts.gov\n+1","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_OH-P2-S009","urls":["https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf","https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_OH-P2-S009","Title / issuer and direct literal URL":"Receiver’s Report re Protection of Consumers and Emergency Request for Instruction, StratFS proceeding, receiver-hosted court filing. https://regulatoryresolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Receiver%E2%80%99s-Request-for-Instruction-Apr.-15-2024.pdf","Exact pinpoint and actual reading":"Printed pp. 10–11, especially p. 11 n.3; filed document header.","Version, effective status, jurisdiction, and limitations":"Filed April 15, 2024, W.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-00040, Doc. 292-1. Primary receiver filing, not a court opinion or official Ohio interpretation. No order adopting its Ohio fee characterization verified. \nregulatoryresolutions.com","Access":"A"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Current displayed §4710.02 text and governing numerical structure","researcher_record":{"Component":"Current displayed §4710.02 text and governing numerical structure","Status after PASS-02":"Answered within this pass","Claim IDs":"C001, C004, C008","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"No additional arithmetic work needed. Future-currentness checks should return to the official codification and any enacted replacement."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Initial consultation included in annual consultation category","researcher_record":{"Component":"Initial consultation included in annual consultation category","Status after PASS-02":"Answered as textual application","Claim IDs":"C003","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"No judicial construction located; do not extend this application automatically to pure setup services."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Separate initial setup and consultation stacking","researcher_record":{"Component":"Separate initial setup and consultation stacking","Status after PASS-02":"Unresolved / held","Claim IDs":"C002–C003","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Locate a full Ohio adjudication or official interpretation addressing both categories, service classification, and credit against the annual limit."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Multiple weekly/submonthly charges","researcher_record":{"Component":"Multiple weekly/submonthly charges","Status after PASS-02":"Unresolved / held","Claim IDs":"C004","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Obtain authority deciding whether separate periodic charges aggregate and how monthly payment bases apply across billing events."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Payment-purpose base versus same-month completed disbursement","researcher_record":{"Component":"Payment-purpose base versus same-month completed disbursement","Status after PASS-02":"Partially answered","Claim IDs":"C005","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Wording is clarified. Any disputed application involving delayed or accumulated distributions still requires authority and complete facts."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Fee-inclusive debit denominator","researcher_record":{"Component":"Fee-inclusive debit denominator","Status after PASS-02":"Unresolved / held","Claim IDs":"C006, C011","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Find a decision or official interpretation explicitly distinguishing gross debit, retained fee, and funds designated for creditors."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Stand-alone savings/principal/per-debt success fee","researcher_record":{"Component":"Stand-alone savings/principal/per-debt success fee","Status after PASS-02":"Unresolved / held","Claim IDs":"C007, C009–C013","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Read complete enforcement orders and locate any merits decision expressly approving or rejecting such a fee after performance under current §4710.02."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Reasonableness and hardship safeguards","researcher_record":{"Component":"Reasonableness and hardship safeguards","Status after PASS-02":"Text verified; no broader implementation clearance","Claim IDs":"C001, C008","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"A specific billing model would still need a supportable policy and application; no automatic entitlement to the ceiling is established."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Statutory rounding","researcher_record":{"Component":"Statutory rounding","Status after PASS-02":"Unresolved; not newly cleared","Claim IDs":"C015; prior C025","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"An express official rounding rule or adjudicated method remains missing."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Collection timing / PASS-01 C026","researcher_record":{"Component":"Collection timing / PASS-01 C026","Status after PASS-02":"Preserved; federal dependency carried","Claim IDs":"C014","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"No new timing research required by this narrow pass; reopen exact federal provisions before asserting new federal conclusions."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Current CSO procedure or provider authorization","researcher_record":{"Component":"Current CSO procedure or provider authorization","Status after PASS-02":"Held / excluded by scope","Claim IDs":"—","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Separate authorized pass must verify current procedure and any provider-specific status."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Agreement, funds, bond, remedies, collection, litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, and broader case law","researcher_record":{"Component":"Agreement, funds, bond, remedies, collection, litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, and broader case law","Status after PASS-02":"Open / excluded by scope","Claim IDs":"—","Missing evidence / exact next investigation":"Continue the later dossier passes. Nothing here constitutes Ohio or A066 acceptance."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[]}