source:
  type: regulation
  id: reg-x-1024-supplement-i
  authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Official Bureau Interpretations (Regulation X Commentary)"
  description: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 is the CFPB's official staff\ncommentary on Regulation X. This register captures the most\noperationally-load-bearing\
    \ commentary interpreting \xA7\xA71024.38\u2013.41\n(servicing policies, early intervention, continuity of contact, and\nloss mitigation procedures).\
    \ Each obligation cites the verbatim\ncomment text and identifies the parent rule it interprets via the\n`interprets` field.\n"
obligations:
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38a-flexibility
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38a-flexibility
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(a)-1: P&P flexibility by size/nature/scope"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.38(a) to permit [LENDER] to determine the\nspecific policies and procedures and the methods of\
    \ implementation so\nlong as they are reasonably designed to achieve the \xA71024.38(b)\nobjectives, with the latitude calibrated to the size,\
    \ nature, and scope\nof [LENDER]'s operations (including portfolio volume/UPB, credit\nquality/default risk, and complaint history).\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.38-a-reasonable-pp
  type: do
  audit_question: "Can [LENDER] articulate how its size, portfolio composition (volume/UPB and credit quality), and complaint history were considered\
    \ in calibrating its \xA71024.38(a) servicing policies and procedures, per Comment 38(a)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: annual
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - policies-procedures
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 38(a)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "1. Policies and procedures. A servicer may determine the specific policies and procedures it will adopt and the methods\
      \ by which it will implement those policies and procedures so long as they are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives set forth in\
      \ \xA7 1024.38(b) . A servicer has flexibility to determine such policies and procedures and methods in light of the size, nature, and scope\
      \ of the servicer's operations, including, for example, the volume and aggregate unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans serviced, the\
      \ credit quality, including the default risk, of the mortgage loans serviced, and the servicer's history of consumer complaints."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(a)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the size/nature/scope calibration \u2014 articulating how [LENDER]'s portfolio volume/UPB, credit\
    \ quality/default risk, and complaint history shaped the \xA71024.38(a) servicing P&Ps, per Comment 38(a)-1?"
  file_review: Read the P&P rationale / risk-assessment record; the compliance person judges whether the calibration to size, portfolio, and complaint
    history is reasonable.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b1vi-successor-identification
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b1vi-successor-identification
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(b)(1)(vi)-1: Identification of potential successors in interest"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.38(b)(1)(vi) to require [LENDER]'s policies\nand procedures to capture notices from various sources\
    \ (ownership\ntransfer, divorce, legal separation, death, a non-borrower submitting\na loss-mit application) and to promptly facilitate communication\
    \ with\npotential successors in interest; [LENDER] is not required to search\nfor successors absent actual notice.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.38-b1-accurate-timely-info
  type: do
  audit_question: Do [LENDER]'s policies and procedures identify the multiple notice channels (ownership/interest transfer, divorce, separation,
    death, third-party loss-mit application) by which potential successor-in-interest existence is recognized, and trigger prompt communication
    on each, per Comment 38(b)(1)(vi)-1?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - successor-in-interest
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 38(b)(1)(vi)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Identification of potential successors in interest. A servicer may be notified of the existence of a potential successor
      in interest in a variety of ways. For example, a person could indicate that there has been a transfer of ownership or of an ownership interest
      in the property or that a borrower has been divorced, legally separated, or died, or a person other than a borrower could submit a loss
      mitigation application. A servicer must maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the servicer can retain this
      information and promptly facilitate communication with potential successors in interest when a servicer is notified of their existence.
      A servicer is not required to conduct a search for potential successors in interest if the servicer has not received actual notice of their
      existence.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(b)(1)(vi)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Am I facilitating the P&Ps such that it is HARD to miss a potential successor in interest \u2014 capturing notice from any\
    \ channel (ownership/interest transfer, divorce, separation, death, third-party loss-mit application) and triggering prompt communication\
    \ \u2014 recognizing no search is required absent actual notice, per Comment 38(b)(1)(vi)-1?"
  file_review: Read the P&P against the notice channels and the prompt-communication trigger; the compliance person judges whether the intake
    design makes successor existence hard to miss.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b3iii-share-with-foreclosure-counsel
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b3iii-share-with-foreclosure-counsel
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(b)(3)(iii)-1: Sharing info with foreclosure-counsel"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.38(b)(3)(iii) to require [LENDER]'s policies\nand procedures to be reasonably designed so that\
    \ servicer personnel\npromptly inform service-provider personnel handling foreclosure\nproceedings (foreclosure counsel) that a complete loss-mit\
    \ application\nhas been received, and promptly instruct foreclosure counsel to take\nany \xA71024.41(g) step sufficiently timely to avoid\
    \ violation of the\nprohibition on moving for judgment/order of sale or conducting a sale.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.38-b3-service-provider-oversight
  type: do
  audit_question: "Do [LENDER]'s policies and procedures specify a prompt-notice channel to foreclosure counsel on receipt of a complete loss-mit\
    \ application, with concrete instructions to halt \xA71024.41(g)-prohibited actions, per Comment 38(b)(3)(iii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - foreclosure-counsel
  - dual-tracking
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 38(b)(3)(iii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "1. Sharing information with service provider personnel handling foreclosure proceedings. A servicer's policies and procedures\
      \ must be reasonably designed to ensure that servicer personnel promptly inform service provider personnel handling foreclosure proceedings\
      \ that the servicer has received a complete loss mitigation application and promptly instruct foreclosure counsel to take any step required\
      \ by \xA7 1024.41(g) sufficiently timely to avoid violating the prohibition against moving for judgment or order of sale, or conducting\
      \ a foreclosure sale."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(b)(3)(iii)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Do the P&Ps specify a prompt-notice channel to foreclosure counsel on receipt of a complete loss-mit application, with concrete\
    \ instructions to halt \xA71024.41(g)-prohibited actions sufficiently timely, per Comment 38(b)(3)(iii)-1?"
  file_review: Read the P&P for the foreclosure-counsel notification channel and halt-instruction; the compliance person judges whether it is
    designed to be prompt and sufficiently timely.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b4i-electronic-transfers
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38b4i-electronic-transfers
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(b)(4)(i)-1: Electronic document transfers and boarding"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.38(b)(4)(i) to permit electronic transfer\nof servicing documents and information if the transfer\
    \ is reasonably\ndesigned to ensure accuracy and enable the transferee to comply with\nits obligations and applicable law \u2014 including\
    \ that data can be\npromptly boarded by the transferee's electronic systems and that all\nnecessary documents are available and appropriately\
    \ identified.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.38-b4-servicing-transfer-info
  type: do
  audit_question: For each servicing transfer where [LENDER] is the transferor, does the data-handoff procedure ensure (i) electronic-transfer
    accuracy, (ii) prompt boardability by the transferee, and (iii) identifiability of all transferred documents, per Comment 38(b)(4)(i)-1?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-servicing-transfer
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - servicing-transfer
  - data-boarding
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 38(b)(4)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Electronic document transfers. A transferor servicer's policies and procedures may provide for transferring documents
      and information electronically, provided that the transfer is conducted in a manner that is reasonably designed to ensure the accuracy of
      the information and documents transferred and that enables a transferee servicer to comply with its obligations to the owner or assignee
      of the loan and with applicable law. For example, a transferor servicer must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure
      that data can be properly and promptly boarded by a transferee servicer's electronic systems and that all necessary documents and information
      are available to, and can be appropriately identified by, a transferee servicer.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(b)(4)(i)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Do the P&Ps ensure each servicing transfer where [LENDER] is transferor provides for (i) electronic-transfer accuracy, (ii)
    prompt boardability by the transferee, and (iii) identifiability of all transferred documents, per Comment 38(b)(4)(i)-1?
  file_review: On outbound transfers, review the data-handoff record; the compliance person judges whether the transfer was accurate, promptly
    boardable, and the documents identifiable.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38c1-retention-by-any-method
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-38c1-retention-by-any-method
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(c)(1)-1: Methods of retaining records"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.38(c)(1) to permit record retention by any\nmethod that reproduces records accurately (including\
    \ computer programs)\nand ensures easy access \u2014 including via a contractual right to access\nrecords possessed by another entity. Paper\
    \ copies are not required.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.38-c1-record-retention
  type: maintain
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s record-retention infrastructure satisfy Comment 38(c)(1)-1 \u2014 accurate reproduction (electronic acceptable)\
    \ and reliable access (including via contractual rights to third-party-held records)?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - record-retention
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 38(c)(1)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Methods of retaining records. Retaining records that document actions taken with respect to a borrower's mortgage loan
      account does not necessarily mean actual paper copies of documents. The records may be retained by any method that reproduces the records
      accurately (including computer programs) and that ensures that the servicer can easily access the records (including a contractual right
      to access records possessed by another entity).
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(c)(1)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the any-accurate-method retention rule \u2014 accurate reproduction (electronic acceptable, paper\
    \ not required) and reliable access, including via a contractual right to records held by another entity, per Comment 38(c)(1)-1?"
  file_review: Spot-check the retention infrastructure for accurate reproduction and reliable access (including contractual access to third-party-held
    records). Objective capability check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39a-live-contact-defined
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39a-live-contact-defined
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 39(a)-2: Live contact defined"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.39(a) live contact to provide [LENDER] an\nopportunity to discuss the circumstances of delinquency.\
    \ Live contact\nincludes speaking by telephone or in person but NOT leaving a recorded\nphone message. [LENDER] may rely on borrower-initiated\
    \ live contact\nand may combine \xA71024.39(a) contact with other communications (e.g.,\ncollection calls that include availability of loss\
    \ mitigation options).\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.39-a-live-contact-36-day
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s collection-contact procedure track each live-contact attempt as live (phone or in-person) versus message-only,
    per Comment 39(a)-2, and does it permit recognition of borrower-initiated calls toward the 36-day live-contact obligation?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-delinquency-cycle
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - live-contact
  - early-intervention
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 39(a)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "2. Establishing live contact. Live contact provides servicers an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of a borrower's\
      \ delinquency. Live contact with a borrower includes speaking on the telephone or conducting an in-person meeting with the borrower but\
      \ not leaving a recorded phone message. A servicer may rely on live contact established at the borrower's initiative to satisfy the live\
      \ contact requirement in \xA7 1024.39(a) . Servicers may also combine contacts made pursuant to \xA7 1024.39(a) with contacts made with\
      \ borrowers for other reasons, for instance, by telling borrowers on collection calls that loss mitigation options may be available."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 39(a)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the live-contact definition \u2014 tracking each attempt as live (telephone or in-person) vs.\
    \ message-only (a recorded message is NOT live), and recognizing borrower-initiated contact toward the 36-day live-contact obligation, per\
    \ Comment 39(a)-2?"
  file_review: 'Start with the call notes / attempt log: confirm attempts are classified live vs. message-only and borrower-initiated contact
    is credited. Objective classification check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39a-good-faith-efforts
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39a-good-faith-efforts
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 39(a)-3: Good faith efforts"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.39(a) good-faith efforts as reasonable\nsteps under the circumstances to reach a borrower \u2014\
    \ which may include\nmultiple phone attempts or written/electronic communication\nencouraging the borrower to establish live contact. Length\
    \ of\ndelinquency and prior non-responsiveness are relevant circumstances:\nearly in the delinquency a phone call may be required, whereas\
    \ with a\nchronically-unresponsive deeply-delinquent borrower a brief periodic-\nstatement sentence may suffice.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.39-a-live-contact-36-day
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s collection-contact playbook escalate or relax good-faith-effort intensity (phone vs. written vs. periodic-statement
    language) based on delinquency depth and borrower responsiveness, per Comment 39(a)-3?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-delinquency-cycle
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - good-faith-efforts
  - live-contact
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 39(a)-3"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "3. Good faith efforts. Good faith efforts to establish live contact consist of reasonable steps, under the circumstances,\
      \ to reach a borrower and may include telephoning the borrower on more than one occasion or sending written or electronic communication\
      \ encouraging the borrower to establish live contact with the servicer. The length of a borrower's delinquency, as well as a borrower's\
      \ failure to respond to a servicer's repeated attempts at communication pursuant to \xA7 1024.39(a) , are relevant circumstances to consider.\
      \ For example, whereas \u201Cgood faith efforts\u201D to establish live contact with regard to a borrower with two consecutive missed payments\
      \ might require a telephone call, \u201Cgood faith efforts\u201D to establish live contact with regard to an unresponsive borrower with\
      \ six or more consecutive missed payments might require no more than including a sentence requesting that the borrower contact the servicer\
      \ with regard to the delinquencies in the periodic statement or in an electronic communication. Comment 39(a)-6 discusses the relationship\
      \ between live contact and the loss mitigation procedures set forth in \xA7 1024.41 ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 39(a)-3.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Do the P&Ps facilitate a collection-contact playbook that scales good-faith-effort intensity (phone vs. written vs. periodic-statement
    language) to delinquency depth and borrower responsiveness, per Comment 39(a)-3?
  file_review: Review the attempt log against the circumstances; the compliance person judges whether the efforts were good-faith given delinquency
    depth and prior non-responsiveness.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39b1-180-day-cap
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39b1-180-day-cap
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 39(b)(1)-2: 180-day frequency cap"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.39(b)(1) to require the written notice no\nmore than once during any 180-day period (running from\
    \ the date the\nnotice was provided), and at least once every 180 days to a borrower\nwho is 45 days or more delinquent. The Comment provides\
    \ a worked\nexample demonstrating the timing across an April 15 issuance and an\nOctober 12 re-issue trigger.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.39-b1-written-notice-45-day
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s early-intervention-notice generation engine enforce the once-per-180-day cap and trigger re-issuance no later
    than 180 days after the prior notice when the borrower remains 45+ days delinquent, per Comment 39(b)(1)-2?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-delinquency-cycle
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - written-notice
  - frequency-cap
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 39(b)(1)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "2. Frequency of the written notice. A servicer need not provide the written notice under \xA7 1024.39(b) more than once\
      \ during a 180-day period beginning on the date on which the written notice is provided. A servicer must provide the written notice under\
      \ \xA7 1024.39(b) at least once every 180 days to a borrower who is 45 days or more delinquent. This provision is illustrated as follows:\
      \ Assume a borrower becomes delinquent on March 1, the amount due is not fully paid during the 45 days after March 1, and the servicer provides\
      \ the written notice on the 45th day after March 1, which is April 15. Assume the borrower also fails to make the payment due on April 1\
      \ and the amount due is not fully paid during the 45 days after April 1. The servicer need not provide the written notice again until after\
      \ the 180-day period beginning on April 15\u2014 i.e., no sooner than on October 12\u2014and then only if the borrower is at that time 45\
      \ days or more delinquent."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 39(b)(1)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the 180-day frequency rule \u2014 issuing the written early-intervention notice no more than once\
    \ per 180-day period (from issuance) and at least once every 180 days to a borrower 45+ days delinquent, per Comment 39(b)(1)-2?"
  file_review: Spot-check the notice-issuance log against the 180-day cap and re-issuance trigger. Objective timing check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39b1-servicing-transfer
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39b1-servicing-transfer
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 39(b)(1)-5: Servicing transfers and the 45-day notice"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.39(b)(1) to require a transferee servicer\nto comply with \xA71024.39(b) regardless of whether\
    \ the transferor\nprovided a notice in the preceding 180-day period \u2014 except that if the\ntransferor provided the \xA71024.39(b) notice\
    \ within 45 days of the\ntransfer date, the transferee is not required to provide another.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.39-b1-written-notice-45-day
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every inbound servicing transfer, does [LENDER]'s early-intervention workflow check the transferor's last \xA71024.39(b)\
    \ notice date and re-issue when the transferor's notice was provided more than 45 days before transfer (else suppress), per Comment 39(b)(1)-5?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-servicing-transfer
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - written-notice
  - servicing-transfer
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 39(b)(1)-5"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "5. Servicing transfers. A transferee servicer is required to comply with the requirements of \xA7 1024.39(b) regardless\
      \ of whether the transferor servicer provided a written notice to the borrower in the preceding 180-day period. However, a transferee servicer\
      \ is not required to provide a written notice under \xA7 1024.39(b) if the transferor servicer provided the written notice under \xA7 1024.39(b)\
      \ within 45 days of the transfer date. For example, assume a borrower has monthly payments, with a payment due on March 1. The transferor\
      \ servicer provides the notice required by \xA7 1024.39(b) on April 10. The loan is transferred on April 12. Assuming the borrower remains\
      \ delinquent, the transferee servicer is not required to provide another written notice until 45 days after May 1, the first post-transfer\
      \ payment due date\u2014 i.e., by June 15."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 39(b)(1)-5.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the transfer-and-notice rule \u2014 a transferee must comply with \xA71024.39(b) regardless of\
    \ the transferor's prior notice, except suppressed where the transferor gave the notice within 45 days of transfer, per Comment 39(b)(1)-5?"
  file_review: "On inbound transfers, confirm the workflow checked the transferor's last \xA71024.39(b) notice date and re-issued or suppressed\
    \ correctly. Objective timing/logic check."
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-40a-assignment-discretion
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-40a-assignment-discretion
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 40(a)-2: Assignment of personnel (single vs. team, single-purpose vs. multi-purpose, bankruptcy-specialized)"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.40(a) to give [LENDER] discretion to assign\na single person or a team, and to use either single-purpose\
    \ personnel\n(primary responsibility = delinquent-borrower inquiries/loss-mit\nassistance) or multi-purpose personnel. When a delinquent borrower\n\
    files bankruptcy, [LENDER] may assign personnel with specialized\nbankruptcy-law knowledge.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.40-a-pp-objectives
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s continuity-of-contact staffing model document the choice of single-person vs. team and single-purpose vs. multi-purpose,
    and is a bankruptcy-specialized track available when the borrower files Chapter 7/13, per Comment 40(a)-2?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - continuity-of-contact
  - staffing
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 40(a)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "2. Assignment of personnel. A servicer has discretion to determine whether to assign a single person or a team of personnel\
      \ to respond to a delinquent borrower. The personnel a servicer assigns to the borrower as described in \xA7 1024.40(a)(1) may be single-purpose\
      \ or multi-purpose personnel. Single-purpose personnel are personnel whose primary responsibility is to respond to a delinquent borrower's\
      \ inquiries, and as applicable, assist the borrower with available loss mitigation options. Multi-purpose personnel can be personnel that\
      \ do not have a primary responsibility at all, or personnel for whom responding to a delinquent borrower's inquiries, and as applicable,\
      \ assisting the borrower with available loss mitigation options is not the personnel's primary responsibility. If the delinquent borrower\
      \ files for bankruptcy, a servicer may assign personnel with specialized knowledge in bankruptcy law to assist the borrower."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 40(a)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the continuity-of-contact staffing discretion \u2014 documenting single-person vs. team and single-\
    \ vs. multi-purpose personnel, with a bankruptcy-specialized track available when the borrower files, per Comment 40(a)-2?"
  file_review: Read the staffing model documentation; confirm the choices and the bankruptcy-specialized track. Objective presence check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41b1-when-inquiry-becomes-application
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41b1-when-inquiry-becomes-application
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(b)(1)-2: When an inquiry or prequalification becomes a loss-mit application"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(b)(1) such that a borrower inquiry\nbecomes a loss mitigation application as soon as the borrower\n\
    expresses an interest in applying AND provides information [LENDER]\nwould evaluate in connection with such an application. The term\n\"application\"\
    \ is read expansively and includes any \"prequalification\"\nrequest \u2014 once preliminary criteria are being applied, \xA71024.41\nprotections\
    \ attach.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-b2-acknowledgment-notice-5-day
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s customer-facing collection/loss-mit script recognize and route inquiries-that-become-applications under Comment\
    \ 41(b)(1)-2 \u2014 i.e., does it treat any prequalification request supported by borrower-evaluable info as triggering the \xA71024.41 timeline?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-borrower-interaction
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - application-trigger
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(b)(1)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "2. When an inquiry or prequalification request becomes an application. A servicer is encouraged to provide borrowers with\
      \ information about loss mitigation programs. If in giving information to the borrower, the borrower expresses an interest in applying for\
      \ a loss mitigation option and provides information the servicer would evaluate in connection with a loss mitigation application, the borrower's\
      \ inquiry or prequalification request has become a loss mitigation application. A loss mitigation application is considered expansively\
      \ and includes any \u201Cprequalification\u201D for a loss mitigation option. For example, if a borrower requests that a servicer determine\
      \ if the borrower is \u201Cprequalified\u201D for a loss mitigation program by evaluating the borrower against preliminary criteria to determine\
      \ eligibility for a loss mitigation option, the request constitutes a loss mitigation application."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(b)(1)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Am I facilitating the loss-mit script such that it is HARD to miss the moment an inquiry/prequalification becomes a loss-mit\
    \ application \u2014 i.e., the borrower expresses interest AND provides evaluable information (read expansively to include any prequalification)\
    \ \u2014 so \xA71024.41 protections attach, per Comment 41(b)(1)-2?"
  file_review: "Review collection/loss-mit call notes for inquiries-that-became-applications; the compliance person judges whether the \xA71024.41\
    \ timeline should have started."
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41b2i-no-sale-scheduled
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41b2i-no-sale-scheduled
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(b)(2)(i)-1: Foreclosure sale not scheduled"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(b)(2)(i) such that if no foreclosure\nsale has been scheduled as of the date [LENDER] receives\
    \ a loss\nmitigation application, [LENDER] must treat the application as having\nbeen received 45 days or more before any foreclosure sale\
    \ (i.e., the\n5-day acknowledgment notice obligation is triggered).\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-b2-acknowledgment-notice-5-day
  type: do
  audit_question: "When a loss-mit application is received with no foreclosure sale yet scheduled, does [LENDER] trigger the \xA71024.41(b)(2)(i)\
    \ 5-day acknowledgment workflow per Comment 41(b)(2)(i)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-loss-mit-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - acknowledgment-notice
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(b)(2)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "1. Foreclosure sale not scheduled. For purposes of \xA7 1024.41(b)(2)(i) , if no foreclosure sale has been scheduled as\
      \ of the date a servicer receives a loss mitigation application, the servicer must treat the application as having been received 45 days\
      \ or more before any foreclosure sale."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(b)(2)(i)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the no-sale-scheduled rule \u2014 treating a loss-mit application received when no foreclosure\
    \ sale is scheduled as received 45+ days before any sale, triggering the 5-day acknowledgment workflow, per Comment 41(b)(2)(i)-1?"
  file_review: Spot-check applications received with no sale scheduled; confirm the 5-day acknowledgment workflow fired. Objective trigger/timing
    check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c1-other-notices-combinable
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c1-other-notices-combinable
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(c)(1)-4: Combining the 30-day evaluation notice with Reg B / FCRA notices"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(c)(1) to permit [LENDER] to combine\nother legally-required notices \u2014 including the Reg\
    \ B adverse-action\nnotice (12 CFR Part 1002) and FCRA notices \u2014 with the \xA71024.41(c)(1)\nevaluation-notice, unless otherwise prohibited\
    \ by applicable law.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-c1-30-day-evaluation
  type: do
  audit_question: "Where [LENDER] combines its \xA71024.41(c)(1) loss-mit determination notice with the ECOA/Reg B adverse-action notice or FCRA\
    \ notice on a loan-modification denial, does the combined notice meet each underlying disclosure's content and timing requirements per Comment\
    \ 41(c)(1)-4?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-denial
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - combined-notices
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(c)(1)-4"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "4. Other notices. A servicer may combine other notices required by applicable law, including, without limitation, a notice\
      \ with respect to an adverse action required by Regulation B, 12 CFR part 1002 , or a notice required pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting\
      \ Act , with the notice required pursuant to \xA7 1024.41(c)(1), unless otherwise prohibited by applicable law."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(c)(1)-4.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for notice-combination \u2014 where the \xA71024.41(c)(1) determination notice is combined with the\
    \ Reg B adverse-action or FCRA notice, ensuring the combined notice meets each underlying disclosure's content and timing, per Comment 41(c)(1)-4?"
  file_review: Spot-check combined determination/adverse-action notices; the compliance person judges whether each underlying disclosure's content
    and timing requirements were satisfied.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c2iii-short-term-forbearance-defined
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c2iii-short-term-forbearance-defined
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(c)(2)(iii)-1: Short-term forbearance \u22646 months"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(c)(2)(iii) such that a short-term\npayment forbearance program allows the forbearance of payments\
    \ due\nover periods of no more than six months, regardless of the amount of\ntime [LENDER] allows the borrower to make up the missing payments.\n\
    Programs longer than six months do not qualify for the incomplete-\napplication exemption.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-c4-reasonable-diligence-third-party
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every forbearance offered without full \xA71024.41(b)/(c) procedures under the \xA71024.41(c)(2)(iii) exemption, does the\
    \ forbearance period not exceed six months per Comment 41(c)(2)(iii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-loss-mit-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - short-term-forbearance
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(c)(2)(iii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "1. Short-term payment forbearance program. The exemption in \xA7 1024.41(c)(2)(iii) applies to, among other things, short-term\
      \ payment forbearance programs. For purposes of \xA7 1024.41(c)(2)(iii) , a payment forbearance program is a loss mitigation option pursuant\
      \ to which a servicer allows a borrower to forgo making certain payments or portions of payments for a period of time. A short-term payment\
      \ forbearance program for purposes of \xA7 1024.41(c)(2)(iii) allows the forbearance of payments due over periods of no more than six months.\
      \ Such a program would be short-term regardless of the amount of time a servicer allows the borrower to make up the missing payments."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(c)(2)(iii)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the short-term-forbearance definition \u2014 limiting the \xA71024.41(c)(2)(iii) incomplete-application\
    \ exemption to forbearance of payments due over no more than six months, regardless of the make-up window, per Comment 41(c)(2)(iii)-1?"
  file_review: Spot-check forbearances offered under the exemption; confirm the forborne-payment period does not exceed six months. Objective
    threshold check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c4i-diligence-30-day-window
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c4i-diligence-30-day-window
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1: Diligence during the first 30 days"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(c)(4)(i) such that during the first 30\ndays after [LENDER] receives a complete loss-mit application,\
    \ reasonable\ndiligence requires [LENDER] to request third-party documents/information\n(i) promptly upon determining a need, and (ii) by\
    \ a date that will\nenable evaluation completion within the \xA71024.41(c)(1) 30-day window\nto the extent practicable.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-c4-reasonable-diligence-third-party
  type: do
  audit_question: "Within the first 30 days after [LENDER] receives a complete loss-mit application, can [LENDER] evidence prompt third-party\
    \ requests upon need-determination, with target turnaround supporting \xA71024.41(c)(1) timing, per Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-loss-mit-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - diligence
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: '1. During the first 30 days following receipt of a complete loss mitigation application. Section 1024.41(c)(4)(i) requires
      a servicer to act with reasonable diligence to obtain documents or information not in the borrower''s control, which includes information
      in the servicer''s control, that the servicer requires to determine which loss mitigation options, if any, it will offer to the borrower.
      At a minimum and without limitation, a servicer must request such documents or information from the appropriate party:'
    drafter_attestation: "Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at\n2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1\
      \ headline\nand the introductory requirement; the (i)\u2013(ii) sub-items are\nparaphrased in description.\n"
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Do the P&Ps facilitate reasonable diligence in the first 30 days after a complete loss-mit application \u2014 requesting third-party\
    \ documents/information (i) promptly upon determining a need and (ii) by a date that enables evaluation within the \xA71024.41(c)(1) 30-day\
    \ window to the extent practicable, per Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1?"
  file_review: Read the diligence trail in the first 30 days for prompt, well-timed third-party requests; the compliance person judges whether
    the diligence shown was reasonable under the circumstances.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41d-investor-requirements
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41d-investor-requirements
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(d)-1: Specific investor-based denial reasons required"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(d) such that if a trial or permanent\nloan-modification option is denied because of an owner-or-assignee\n\
    requirement, the specific-reason notice MUST identify the\nowner-or-assignee and the specific applicable requirement that is the\nbasis of\
    \ the denial. A bare statement that the denial is based on\n\"investor requirements\" is insufficient (subject to the waterfall\nsafe-harbor\
    \ for ranked options below the offered option).\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-d-denial-specific-reasons
  type: do
  audit_question: Do [LENDER]'s loan-modification denial templates identify, by name, the relevant investor/guarantor and the specific applicable
    requirement supporting the denial, per Comment 41(d)-1?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-denial
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - denial-reasons
  - investor-requirements
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(d)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Investor requirements. If a trial or permanent loan modification option is denied because of a requirement of an owner
      or assignee of a mortgage loan, the specific reasons in the notice provided to the borrower must identify the owner or assignee of the mortgage
      loan and the requirement that is the basis of the denial. A statement that the denial of a loan modification option is based on an investor
      requirement, without additional information specifically identifying the relevant investor or guarantor and the specific applicable requirement,
      is insufficient. However, where an owner or assignee has established an evaluation criteria that sets an order ranking for evaluation of
      loan modification options (commonly known as a waterfall) and a borrower has qualified for a particular loan modification option in the
      ranking established by the owner or assignee, it is sufficient for the servicer to inform the borrower, with respect to other loan modification
      options ranked below any such option offered to a borrower, that the investor's requirements include the use of such a ranking and that
      an offer of a loan modification option necessarily results in a denial for any other loan modification options below the option for which
      the borrower is eligible in the ranking.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(d)-1 (including

      the waterfall safe-harbor sentence).

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the investor-denial specificity rule \u2014 denial templates naming the relevant investor/guarantor\
    \ and the specific applicable requirement (a bare 'investor requirements' statement is insufficient, subject to the waterfall safe-harbor),\
    \ per Comment 41(d)-1?"
  file_review: Spot-check loan-modification denial notices for the named investor and specific requirement (or correct waterfall language). Objective
    element/presence check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41d-npv-inputs
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41d-npv-inputs
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(d)-2: NPV-denial requires NPV inputs disclosed"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(d) such that if a trial or permanent\nloan modification is denied because of a net-present-value\
    \ calculation,\nthe specific reasons in the notice MUST include the inputs used in\nthe NPV calculation.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-d-denial-specific-reasons
  type: do
  audit_question: For every loan-modification denial citing NPV failure, does [LENDER]'s denial notice include the NPV inputs used, per Comment
    41(d)-2?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-denial
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - denial-reasons
  - npv
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(d)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 2. Net present value calculation. If a trial or permanent loan modification is denied because of a net present value calculation,
      the specific reasons in the notice provided to the borrower must include the inputs used in the net present value calculation.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(d)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the NPV-denial rule \u2014 including the NPV inputs in the specific reasons whenever a loan-modification\
    \ denial cites a net-present-value calculation, per Comment 41(d)-2?"
  file_review: Spot-check NPV-based denial notices for the disclosed NPV inputs. Objective element/presence check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41f-first-notice-or-filing
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41f-first-notice-or-filing
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(f)-1: What counts as the \"first notice or filing\""
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(f) such that whether a document is the\n\"first notice or filing\" is determined under applicable\
    \ State law:\n(i) where foreclosure requires court action, the earliest court-filed\ndocument (complaint, petition, order to docket, or notice\
    \ of hearing);\n(ii) where foreclosure is by power of sale, the earliest document\nrequired to be recorded or published; (iii) where no filing\
    \ or\nrecording is required, the earliest document scheduling the\nforeclosure sale; (iv) a document not initially required to be filed\n\
    is not the first notice or filing merely because it must later\naccompany another document that is.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-f1-120-day-foreclosure-referral
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every foreclosure referral on a [LENDER]-serviced loan, does the 120-day-rule compliance check identify the correct \"\
    first notice or filing\" under the applicable State's foreclosure procedure per Comment 41(f)-1(i)\u2013(iv)?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: foreclosure_specialist
  cadence: per-foreclosure-referral
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - foreclosure-hold
  - first-notice-or-filing
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(f)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Prohibited activities. Section 1024.41(f) prohibits a servicer from making the first notice or filing required by applicable
      law for any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process under certain circumstances. Whether a document is considered the first notice
      or filing is determined on the basis of foreclosure procedure under the applicable State law.
    drafter_attestation: "Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at\n2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the Comment 41(f)-1\
      \ headline; the\n(i)\u2013(iv) State-procedure variants are paraphrased in description.\n"
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the State-law-specific 'first notice or filing' determination \u2014 so the 120-day-rule check\
    \ correctly identifies the earliest court filing / recorded-or-published document / sale-scheduling document per the applicable State's procedure,\
    \ per Comment 41(f)-1(i)\u2013(iv)?"
  file_review: On foreclosure referrals, confirm the 120-day check used the correct first-notice/filing for the State; the compliance person judges
    whether the right document was identified under State law.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41g-foreclosure-counsel-instruction
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41g-foreclosure-counsel-instruction
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(g)-3: Interaction with foreclosure counsel"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(g) such that the prohibitions on moving\nfor foreclosure judgment/order of sale, or conducting\
    \ a sale, may\nrequire [LENDER] to act through foreclosure counsel. On receipt of a\ncomplete loss-mit application, [LENDER] must promptly\
    \ instruct counsel\n(i) not to make a dispositive motion for foreclosure judgment or\norder of sale, (ii) where such a motion is pending,\
    \ to avoid a ruling\nor order, and (iii) where a sale is scheduled, to prevent the sale \u2014\nunless \xA71024.41(g)(1)\u2013(3) is met.\
    \ [LENDER] is not relieved of\n\xA71024.41(g) liability for counsel's actions or inaction.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-g-prohibition-on-foreclosure-sale
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s loss-mit-to-foreclosure-counsel hand-off procedure require prompt counsel-instruction on receipt of a complete\
    \ loss-mit application \u2014 to suppress dispositive motions, dispose of pending motions without ruling, or stop scheduled sales \u2014 and\
    \ does [LENDER] supervise counsel's compliance, per Comment 41(g)-3?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: foreclosure_specialist
  cadence: per-loss-mit-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - foreclosure-counsel
  - dual-tracking
  - anti-dual-tracking
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(g)-3"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "3. Interaction with foreclosure counsel. The prohibitions in \xA7 1024.41(g) against moving for judgment or order of sale\
      \ or conducting a sale may require a servicer to act through foreclosure counsel retained by the servicer in a foreclosure proceeding. If\
      \ a servicer has received a complete loss mitigation application, the servicer must instruct counsel promptly not to make a dispositive\
      \ motion for foreclosure judgment or order of sale; where such a dispositive motion is pending, to avoid a ruling on the motion or issuance\
      \ of an order of sale; and, where a sale is scheduled, to prevent conduct of a foreclosure sale, unless one of the conditions in \xA7 1024.41(g)(1)\
      \ through (3) is met. A servicer is not relieved of its obligations because foreclosure counsel's actions or inaction caused a violation."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(g)-3.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program facilitate prompt foreclosure-counsel instruction on receipt of a complete loss-mit application \u2014 to\
    \ suppress dispositive motions, avoid a ruling on a pending motion, or stop a scheduled sale unless \xA71024.41(g)(1)\u2013(3) is met \u2014\
    \ and supervise counsel's compliance (since [LENDER] is not relieved by counsel's actions), per Comment 41(g)-3?"
  file_review: 'Start with the notes / counsel-instruction log: confirm prompt instruction issued and the prohibited step was averted. The compliance
    person judges whether the instruction was timely and counsel actually complied.'
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41h3-supervisory-personnel-appeal
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41h3-supervisory-personnel-appeal
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(h)(3)-1: Supervisory personnel may evaluate appeal"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(h)(3) such that the appeal may be\nevaluated by supervisory personnel responsible for oversight\
    \ of the\npersonnel that conducted the initial evaluation \u2014 provided the\nsupervisory personnel were not directly involved in the initial\n\
    evaluation of the borrower's complete loss-mit application.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-h-appeal-process
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every \xA71024.41(h) appeal, can [LENDER] evidence that the appeal reviewer was different personnel from the initial reviewer\
    \ (or a supervisor not directly involved in the initial evaluation), per Comment 41(h)(3)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-appeal
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - appeal-process
  - supervisory-review
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(h)(3)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: 1. Supervisory personnel. The appeal may be evaluated by supervisory personnel that are responsible for oversight of the
      personnel that conducted the initial evaluation, as long as the supervisory personnel were not directly involved in the initial evaluation
      of the borrower's complete loss mitigation application.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(h)(3)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the appeal-independence rule \u2014 routing each \xA71024.41(h) appeal to different personnel\
    \ than the initial reviewer (or a supervisor not directly involved in the initial evaluation), per Comment 41(h)(3)-1?"
  file_review: On appeals, confirm the appeal reviewer differed from the initial reviewer (or was an uninvolved supervisor). Objective independence
    check against the reviewer identities.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41i-cured-and-redelinquent
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41i-cured-and-redelinquent
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(i)-1: Re-applicability when borrower cures and re-defaults"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.41(i) such that if a borrower previously\nsubmitted a complete loss-mit application and [LENDER]\
    \ complied fully\nwith \xA71024.41, but the borrower then ceased to be delinquent and\nlater became delinquent again, [LENDER] must again\
    \ comply with\n\xA71024.41 for any subsequent loss-mit application. When re-applicable,\n[LENDER] must satisfy all \xA71024.41 requirements,\
    \ including providing\na new \xA71024.41(c)(3)(i) complete-application notice (the prior\n\xA71024.41(c)(1)(ii) determination notice does\
    \ not satisfy this).\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.41-b2-acknowledgment-notice-5-day
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every loss-mit application from a borrower who previously completed \xA71024.41 review, cured, and then re-defaulted, does\
    \ [LENDER] restart the full \xA71024.41 procedure (including a fresh \xA71024.41(c)(3)(i) notice) per Comment 41(i)-1?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-loss-mit-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - loss-mitigation
  - duplicative-requests
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "1. Applicability of loss mitigation protections. Under \xA7 1024.41(i) , a servicer must comply with \xA7 1024.41 with respect\
      \ to a loss mitigation application unless the servicer has previously done so for a complete loss mitigation application submitted by the\
      \ borrower and the borrower has been delinquent at all times since submitting the prior complete application. Thus, for example, if the\
      \ borrower has previously submitted a complete loss mitigation application and the servicer complied fully with \xA7 1024.41 for that application,\
      \ but the borrower then ceased to be delinquent and later became delinquent again, the servicer again must comply with \xA7 1024.41 for\
      \ any subsequent loss mitigation application submitted by the borrower. When a servicer is required to comply with the requirements of \xA7\
      \ 1024.41 for such a subsequent loss mitigation application, the servicer must comply with all applicable requirements of \xA7 1024.41 .\
      \ For example, in such a case, the servicer's provision of the notice of determination of which loss mitigation options, if any, it will\
      \ offer to the borrower under \xA7 1024.41(c)(1)(ii) regarding the borrower's prior complete loss mitigation application does not affect\
      \ the servicer's obligations to provide a new notice of complete application under \xA7 1024.41(c)(3)(i) regarding the borrower's subsequent\
      \ complete loss mitigation application."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 41(i)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the re-applicability rule \u2014 restarting the full \xA71024.41 procedure (including a fresh\
    \ \xA71024.41(c)(3)(i) complete-application notice) for a borrower who previously completed review, cured, and re-defaulted, per Comment 41(i)-1?"
  file_review: Spot-check applications from previously-reviewed, cured, then re-defaulted borrowers; confirm the full procedure restarted with
    a new (c)(3)(i) notice. Objective trigger/presence check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39c-adapting-bankruptcy
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-39c-adapting-bankruptcy
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 39(c)-2: Adapting \xA71024.39 requirements in bankruptcy"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71024.39(c) such that \xA71024.39 does NOT require\n[LENDER] to communicate with a borrower in a manner\
    \ that would be\ninconsistent with applicable bankruptcy law or a court order in a\nbankruptcy case. If necessary to comply with such law\
    \ or order,\n[LENDER] may adapt the requirements of \xA71024.39 as appropriate.\n"
  interprets: reg-x-1024.39-c1-bankruptcy-partial-exemption
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s bankruptcy-COC workflow include a documented adaptation procedure for \xA71024.39 obligations that would otherwise\
    \ conflict with applicable bankruptcy law or a specific court order, per Comment 39(c)-2?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: bankruptcy_specialist
  secondary_owner_role: compliance_officer
  cadence: per-bankruptcy-event
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-x
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - servicing
  - bankruptcy
  - partial-exemption
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 39(c)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "2. Adapting requirements in bankruptcy. Section 1024.39(c) does not require a servicer to communicate with a borrower in\
      \ a manner that would be inconsistent with applicable bankruptcy law or a court order in a bankruptcy case. If necessary to comply with\
      \ such law or court order, a servicer may adapt the requirements of \xA7 1024.39 as appropriate."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T12:15Z. Substring is the full Comment 39(c)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program account for the bankruptcy-adaptation rule \u2014 a documented procedure to adapt \xA71024.39 obligations\
    \ that would otherwise conflict with applicable bankruptcy law or a specific court order, per Comment 39(c)-2?"
  file_review: "Spot-check bankruptcy-COC files for the documented adaptation where a \xA71024.39 obligation conflicted with bankruptcy law/order;\
    \ the compliance person judges whether the adaptation was appropriate."
  judgment: true
- id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c4i-diligence-30-day-window-enumerated-items
  canonical_id: reg-x-1024-supp-i-41c4i-diligence-30-day-window-enumerated-items
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1: Diligence during the first 30 days \u2014 enumerated items (chapeau recall fix)"
  description: "The enumerated provisions following the chapeau of Supplement I \u2014 Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1: Diligence during the first 30 days,\
    \ dropped by the original extraction and restored verbatim from the snapshot."
  type: do
  tags:
  - chapeau-recall
  - regulator-direct
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1024 \u2014 Comment 41(c)(4)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1024
    snapshot_id: 55d9b4b8253ab3d1
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
    paragraph_quote: "i. Promptly upon determining that the servicer requires the documents or information to determine which loss mitigation\
      \ options, if any, the servicer will offer the borrower; and ii. By a date that will enable the servicer to complete the evaluation within\
      \ 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application, as set forth in \xA7 1024.41(c)(1) , to the extent practicable."
    drafter_attestation: "Captured verbatim (whitespace-normalized) from snapshot 55d9b4b8253ab3d1 as the enumerated list immediately following\
      \ the chapeau ' information from the appropriate party:'. List boundary captured conservatively \u2014 REVIEW the end boundary before promote."
  judgment: false
  promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:35:53+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-x-1024-supplement-i-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  source_provenance:
    source_id: reg-x-1024-supplement-i
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:25Z'
    content_hash: sha256:d35565acdc38dba316009b99340b2147b44d19ab9838d393f1abbaadccb85a1d
_promotion_history:
- promoted_at: '2026-05-22T12:03:03+00:00'
  candidate_path: obligations\_remediation\_round_b_drafts\reg-x-1024-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 22
  candidates_skipped_existing: 0
- promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:35:53+00:00'
  candidate_path: C:\Users\earlc\broker-tools\obligations\_remediation\chapeau-recall\reg-x-1024-supplement-i-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 1
  candidates_skipped_existing: 0
- promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:38:24+00:00'
  candidate_path: C:\Users\earlc\broker-tools\obligations\_remediation\chapeau-recall\reg-x-1024-supplement-i-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 0
  candidates_skipped_existing: 1
- promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:39:13+00:00'
  candidate_path: C:\Users\earlc\broker-tools\obligations\_remediation\chapeau-recall\reg-x-1024-supplement-i-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 0
  candidates_skipped_existing: 1
