SettleADebt.
Get debt help
Home/Numbers and comparisons

Check which document controls

Can you rely on a rule copied onto another website?

A draft, an older rule and the current official rule may say different things. Check the version, effective date and official source before treating a copied number as a current limit.

  1. Draft

    A proposal; check whether it became effective.

  2. Older rule

    A historical version that may no longer control.

  3. Current official text

    Check its effective date and the actual situation it covers.

Check which document controls

A proposal shows what someone wanted to change. An older rule shows what applied at a previous point. A current official text needs its own effective-date check. A copy hosted elsewhere can be useful without controlling the current answer.

For an actual fee question, retain the title, issuing authority, version and effective date. Read amendments and the service covered before applying a number copied from another page.

This is a saved illustration with stated assumptions, not an offer or prediction for your circumstances. The full calculation and original limitations are in the optional archive.

Explore the complete state local territorial and tribal rules guide →
Open the complete calculation, tables and source notesOriginal working documents, complete tables and revision history
About this archive

The explanation above is written for readers. These original working documents preserve the evidence trail, including technical language, dated passages and known corrections. They have not all received independent professional review. Use the marked limits before relying on a particular rule or figure.

Home Data & examples / Colorado’s document trail: a draft, a reproduction and a final rule are different evidence
DATA & WORKED EXAMPLE

Colorado’s document trail: a draft, a reproduction and a final rule are different evidence

The saved comparison traces the refund reference to an official historical draft and the former statute. It cannot be described simply as a Cornell typo, silently repaired or used as verified current charging authority.

Saved research, explicit assumptions and source limits. Full investigation → · All original tables →

2. Exact settlement-allocation text: secondary transcription confirmed, official-final comparison incomplete

Comparison pointOfficial historical draft, S003Cornell/Justia reproduction, S006–S007Result
Opening scopeBegins with a condition concerning plans contemplating settlement below principal.Begins directly with paragraph (a), “A provider…”Do not insert the draft’s opening condition into an unread final rule.
NumberingAllocation at 1(a); education at 2; refund at 2(a).Allocation at (a)(1); education at (b); refund at (b)(1).Draft and reproduced final numbering are not interchangeable.
Allocation wordingProportional enrollment-debt relationship or savings percentage; unchanged percentage between debts.Corresponding wording reproduced above.Historical consistency established; official-final identity remains held.

F. Actual earlier-claim patch map

Earlier claim IDSupplied assertion retainedPASS-02 patchResulting status / linked claims
S_CO-P1-C015“Current instructions request $1,500 for counseling, $5,000 settlement, $5,000 both; initial PDF application and portal renewal routes are available.”Amounts and application-submission instruction freshly confirmed. Distinguish current operational publication, statutory delegation, and the still-missing dated exercise of that delegation. No consumer pass-through or named-provider authorization established.Operational finding retained; dated instrument held. C009–C012.
S_CO-P1-C022“Rule 4 reproduction reports proportional enrollment-debt or invariant savings-percentage methods; no numerical settlement percentage is cleared by this pass.”Exact reproduced passage supplied and compared with official historical draft. Preserve numbering/scope differences. Official adopted/current wording remains unread.Partial status retained. C001–C003.
S_CO-P1-C024“The reproduced standalone $100/administrator-approved-larger-fee and 90-day refund provisions cannot yet be treated as cleared current charging authority.”Add verified historical provenance: the reference was correct in the former statute and also appears in an official draft. Do not describe it solely as a Cornell error; do not silently repair it.Charging-authority hold retained; provenance substantially clarified. C004–C007, C013.
S_CO-P1-C034“Statutory fee changes took effect March 1, 2025; rule is officially listed effective March 30; 2026 annual expiration was postponed.”Fresh historical/repeal passages and procedural metadata support the identified transition records. The earlier 2026 annual-extension finding is carried forward as supplied; its act was not reread in this pass. Final wording, transition-period construction, and exhaustive stay/vacatur history remain unclosed.Earlier date/status finding preserved within its limits. C001, C004, C008, C013.

What to keep attached

  • Official final/current Rule 4, final basis and AG opinion remain unread. Proposed basis and secondary transcriptions are not replacements.
  • P2 is additive documentary provenance, not clearance of consumer charges, provider status or the Colorado dossier.

Source trail

Get debt settlement help