Internal accounting consistency checks (convention, not law)
provisional· industry convention · US · convention.accounting_consistency v1 · file sha256 db5bcacc0a72…
This rule is not verified. Its text, elements and any period parameters are research placeholders written for human review. Findings based on it are capped at Plausible/Weak and documents cannot cite it as verified authority.
Rationale
Convention-level checks surface accounting questions; they never produce legal findings.
Authorities
- CDIA Metro 2 Format — Date of First Delinquency field supporting industry convention — Industry reporting convention for the date of first delinquency field
Convention, not law. Cannot support a legal finding on its own.
Links open public legal sources in your browser; this application itself never fetches them.
Primary-source snapshots
None on file. Import one with cda rules import-source.
Verification record
No human verification record.
Applies to
Account types: any · Circumstances: none required
Required elements
| Element | Fact tested | Test | Quote anchor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balance reported | account.balance | known | no anchor yet |
Contrary considerations
- A balance above the original amount can be lawful (interest, fees); only an itemization can resolve it.
Potential outcomes (not predictions)
none (non-legal rule)
Routes this rule can suggest
- Request an itemized accounting — A request for an itemization: principal, interest, fees, payments, credits, and charge-off amount.
- Ask who owns the debt and for the chain of assignment — A request identifying the current owner, the original creditor, and the dates of any assignment.