Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

SettleADebt — S_CO PASS-02

Rule 4, education-fee refund language, and administrative fee authority

This follow-up establishes the historical source of the disputed refund cross-reference and confirms the currently posted provider fees. It does not clear the two principal documentary holds: the official final/current Rule 4 and final basis attachment remain unread through the permitted public-web routes, and no dated instrument establishing the posted $1,500/$5,000 administrative fees was recovered.

The new primary evidence matters: the reference to “subsection (d)(4) of this section” appears in an official AG draft, and it was a valid cross-reference in the former statute. It therefore should not be characterized merely as a Cornell transcription error. Whether the official final rule retained it—and its authoritative construction if retained—remains unresolved. Claims S_CO-P2-C004–C006. Colorado Revised Statutes 2024+1

Access record: Research accesses occurred October 22, 2026, Pacific Daylight Time, corresponding to October 23, 2026 UTC. The last clock check was 2026-10-23 06:44:03 UTC / 2026-10-22 23:44:03 PDT. Thus, the Pacific access date did not move beyond the requested October 22 baseline.

This is an additive follow-up to the supplied PASS-01 records. It does not replace the original answer, establish a named provider’s authorization, or constitute Colorado-state or A066 acceptance.

ID convention: In the tables below, abbreviated references such as S003, C005, D002, and F001 mean the corresponding S_CO-P2- record. Earlier records always retain the S_CO-P1- prefix.

A. Substantive findings

1. Official final Rule 4: identified, but its body remains held

The Secretary of State materials read during this pass identified docket 2024-00603, adoption on February 7, 2025, publication on March 10, 2025, and an effective-date listing of March 30, 2025. The legislative rules table separately identifies LLS docket 250175, associated with HB24-1380 and the February 7 adoption. These are useful document identifiers and procedural metadata; they do not substitute for reading the operative attachment. C001; discovery records D001–D004. sos.state.co.us+2

The actual adopted-rules DOCX and final-associated basis DOC were followed through the official docket. Both returned the public reader’s “Unsupported content-type: application/octet-stream” error, including alternate official-host attempts. The register’s adopted-rule link led to the same unread DOCX. The listed February 24, 2025 AG-opinion link returned the docket address and an error, without an opinion body.

Accordingly:

• Official full current Rule 4(a)(1), (b), and (b)(1): unresolved.
• Final adopted basis and any adoption-order language: unresolved.
• AG opinion’s reasoning, qualifications, and conclusion: unread.
• Listed adoption/publication/effective dates: observed metadata, with the PASS-01 legal-status finding carried forward separately.

These failures describe the available retrieval path. They do not establish that the documents are absent, defective, invalid, or unavailable by every public route.

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

Cornell’s Rule 4 transcription was freshly read. Justia’s reproduction was also read and matches the relevant allocation passage. The following is the exact reproduced regulatory wording, not a representation that the official adopted attachment was read:

(a) A provider may not request or receive payment of any fee or consideration until and unless:

1. The fee or consideration either: Bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for settling the terms of the entire debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the entire debt amount, in which case the individual debt amount and the entire debt amount are those owed at the time the debt was enrolled in the service; or is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the settlement. The percentage charged cannot change from one individual debt to another.

The amount saved is the difference between the amount owed at the time the debt was enrolled in the plan and the amount actually paid to satisfy the debt.

C002; S006 Rule 4(a)(1); S007 Rule 4(a)(1). LII / Legal Information Institute+1

The official AG “Draft Rule 4 Status Quo” contains materially corresponding allocation language in clause 1(a). It is useful historical primary evidence, but differs from the secondary current-rule presentation in two consequential ways:

C003. coag.gov

Nothing recovered in this pass establishes a particular numerical settlement percentage as current charging authority. Nor does comparison of the allocation language clear all other conditions governing when a fee may be requested or received. PASS-01’s timing findings are not rerun here.

3. Education fee and 90-day refund: provenance resolved; current legal construction remains held

Historical statutory reference

The official 2024 Title 5 compilation, printed page 215, supplies the missing historical connection:

• Former §5-19-223(d)(4)(A) contained the standalone education/counseling fee provision.
• Former §5-19-223(e)(1) required a refund upon agreement assent within the specified post-service period and correctly referred to (d)(4).
• (d)(4)(B) and (e)(2) expressly provided for repeal on March 1, 2025.

The freshly read 2025 compilation shows both provisions repealed. C004; S001–S002. Colorado Revised Statutes 2024+1

What the reproduced rule actually says

Cornell’s Rule 4(b) describes an education/counseling fee for an individual who does not assent to an agreement, subject to §5-19-228(d): up to $100, or a larger amount approved by the administrator because the services warrant it.

Its Rule 4(b)(1) describes a refund if the individual assents to an agreement before ninety days expire after completion or termination of the education/counseling services. It still points to “subsection (d)(4) of this section.” Justia reproduces the same reference. C006; S006–S007. LII / Legal Information Institute+1

The official AG draft also contains that reference, at clause 2(a). The supported inference is that the former statutory refund language was carried forward without updating its internal reference. That is a contextual inference, not an official correction or controlling interpretation. C005. coag.gov

The resulting legal boundary is precise:

• The former statutory provisions cannot be treated as unrepealed charging authority.
• The reproduction cannot yet be promoted into verified official-final charging authority.
• The reference cannot silently be changed from (d)(4) to (b).
• The retrieved evidence does not establish that the refund provision is ineffective, that all education fees are prohibited, or that a fee may automatically be retained after ninety days.
• A refund obligation, if applicable, does not itself establish that the original charge was lawful.

The surviving §5-19-223(c) separately addresses education/counseling charges when an individual assents to an agreement, including administrator authorization. It is not an authoritative repair of Rule 4’s reference or an automatic authorization for the reproduced standalone amount. C007; S002 §223(c). olls.info

Targeted searches did not locate a responsive official erratum, substantive agency interpretation, later amendment, or controlling judicial decision resolving this cross-reference. That is a bounded research result, not a certification that none exists. C013.

4. Proposed basis recovered; final basis not recovered

The readable AG-hosted Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose expressly refers to “The proposed rule.” It describes preserving the earlier fee structure through regulation and identifies principal-reduction settlement plans as the subject. It cites §5-19-223(d)(2)(C) and §5-19-232(c). It contains no verified final-adoption statement in the passage read. C008; S004, p.1. Uniform Debt-Management Services Act

The December 11, 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking, §III, instead cites §5-19-223(d)(3)(C). The relevant statutory rulemaking subsection in the compilation is (d)(2)(C). This citation discrepancy is preserved; it is not treated as a judicial finding about the rule’s validity. The final basis attachment remains necessary to establish what the agency ultimately adopted and explained. C008; S005 §III; S002 §223(d)(2)(C). DMSA Fees+1

5. Administrative registration/renewal fees: amounts verified; dated establishment still unresolved

The current AG registration page and currently linked application establish the following operational instructions:

The current application says its fee is due with submission. These are provider-to-regulator charges. These materials do not establish a consumer pass-through entitlement. C009; S008–S009. Colorado Attorney General+1

The authority chain is only partly complete:

1. Delegation: §5-19-232(e) directs the administrator to establish reasonable provider fees administratively and permits variation by service type. S002 §232(e).
2. Change in fee-setting method: The June 13, 2024 final fiscal note explains that HB24-1251 moved these fees from rulemaking to administrative establishment. Its August 7, 2024 date concerns the legislation—not the later posted amounts. S011 pp.2–3.
3. Exercise establishing the amounts: No dated final determination, adopted schedule, order, or official notice expressly establishing the $1,500/$5,000 figures was recovered. C010–C012. olls.info+1

There is also a historical-source conflict that remains bounded. The AG program’s rules link led to an older official compilation, ruleVersionId=7291, whose Rule 1(a)–(b) states uniform $1,000 initial and renewal fees. That historical file does not establish the current administrative amount or prove that the newer operational instructions are invalid. It reinforces the need for the intervening dated administrative instrument. C011; S010 p.1. sos.state.co.us

The exact establishment/effective date remains held. No date is inferred from an upload directory, application filename, budget material, or statutory delegation date.

B. Actual source register — documents or substantive passages read

All access dates below: 2026-10-22 PDT / 2026-10-23 UTC. “Read” means the identified passage was returned and examined, not that an entire compilation was audited. Each document has one ID reused across its sections.

C. Discovery and procedural metadata — separate from the source register

These records identify documents and routes. They are not substituted for operative legal text.

The separate September 2017 correction docket concerned historical citation recodification. It was not treated as a correction of the 2025 education/refund issue.

D. Failed-route and access record

Common access date: October 22, 2026 PDT. Repeated identical failures are grouped. No inaccessible attachment or indexed snippet is counted as a substantive read.

For the administrative fee instrument, targeted searches also covered official fee notices, renewal materials, administrative schedules, and fee-increase terminology. They did not recover a dated establishing instrument. That unsuccessful search is not evidence that the posted fees are invalid.

E. PASS-02 claim table

F. Actual earlier-claim patch map

These are append-only proposed clarifications to the supplied records. The original claims and IDs are preserved.

G. Dependency crosswalk — carried findings are not fresh readings

H. Component coverage and exact remaining investigations

Continuation boundary: The next evidentiary work begins with the unread final Rule 4/basis/opinion documents and the dated administrative fee instrument. Repeating the reproduced formula, federal overview, historical CPI analysis, or already-checked arithmetic would not close those gaps.

I. Researcher self-check

Actually read in this pass: the specified historical and 2025 statutory passages; the official one-page Rule 4 draft; the proposed basis statement; the proposal notice; Cornell and Justia’s relevant rule bodies; current registration and application fee passages; historical Rule 1; and the final fiscal note’s relevant passages. A parallel check also returned the earlier application’s fee passage, followed by a failed main-thread retry, as explicitly recorded.

Not read: the official adopted DOCX; final-associated basis DOC; AG opinion body; official full current Rule 4; the inaccessible sunset report; and a dated instrument adopting the differentiated administrative fees. The 2026 compilation was not freshly recovered. No absence finding is promoted beyond the checked routes.

The parallel checks were research subtasks within this response. They were not separate ChatGPT conversations, and this self-check is not an independent review. The available session identifies as GPT-6 Astra Pro; a chatgpt.com model-selector label was not verified or changed.

Existing ordinary public-web tools were used. No Deep Research, Chrome-access request, permission expansion, external API substitution, purchase, account change, contact, private borrower data, application submission, or publication action was used.

END S_CO PASS-02.