source:
  type: regulation
  id: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid
  authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Official Bureau Interpretations (Regulation Z Commentary, TRID-Relevant Sections)"
  description: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 is the CFPB's official staff\ncommentary on Regulation Z. This register captures the most\noperationally-load-bearing\
    \ commentary interpreting the TRID\nintegrated-disclosure sections only: \xA71026.18 (scope/applicability),\n\xA71026.19(e)/(f)/(g) (LE/CD\
    \ timing, good-faith tolerances, settlement-\nbooklet), \xA71026.37 (LE content), and \xA71026.38 (CD content). Each\nobligation cites the\
    \ verbatim comment text and identifies the\nparent rule it interprets via the `interprets` field.\n"
obligations:
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-18-scope-non-trid
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-18-scope-non-trid
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 18-3.i: \xA71026.18 scope \u2014 excludes TRID-covered loans"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.18 such that it applies to closed-end\nconsumer credit transactions OTHER than transactions subject\
    \ to\n\xA71026.19(e) and (f). Section 1026.19(e)/(f) applies to closed-end\nconsumer credit secured by real property or a cooperative unit\
    \ (other\nthan reverse mortgages subject to \xA71026.33). Accordingly, \xA71026.18\napplies only to: unsecured loans; loans secured by personal\
    \ property\nthat is not a dwelling; loans secured by personal property (other\nthan a cooperative unit) that is a dwelling and not also by\
    \ real\nproperty; and reverse mortgages subject to \xA71026.33.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.18-headline-closed-end-disclosures
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s disclosure-engine route every closed-end consumer credit transaction to either \xA71026.18 (when not secured\
    \ by real property/cooperative unit, or when reverse mortgage under \xA71026.33) or \xA71026.19(e)/(f) + \xA7\xA71026.37/.38 (TRID \u2014\
    \ secured by real property or cooperative unit, non-reverse), per Comment 18-3.i?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - disclosure-scope
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 18-3.i"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "3. Scope of coverage. i. Section 1026.18 applies to closed-end consumer credit transactions, other than transactions that\
      \ are subject to \xA7 1026.19(e) and (f) . Section 1026.19(e) and (f) applies to closed-end consumer credit transactions that are secured\
      \ by real property or a cooperative unit, other than reverse mortgages subject to \xA7 1026.33 . Accordingly, the disclosures required by\
      \ \xA7 1026.18 apply only to closed-end consumer credit transactions that are:"
    drafter_attestation: "Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at\n2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion\
      \ of Comment\n18-3.i; the A\u2013D enumerated categories are paraphrased in\ndescription.\n"
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the disclosure engine correctly route every closed-end consumer credit transaction \u2014 to \xA71026.18 when not secured\
    \ by real property/cooperative unit (or when a reverse mortgage under \xA71026.33), and to \xA71026.19(e)/(f) + \xA7\xA71026.37/.38 (TRID)\
    \ when secured by real property or a cooperative unit and not a reverse mortgage?"
  file_review: Spot-check exemplar files at each scope boundary (unsecured, personal-property dwelling, reverse mortgage, real-property TRID);
    confirm the disclosure set produced matches the routing rule.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1ii-mortgage-broker-le-responsibility
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1ii-mortgage-broker-le-responsibility
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-1: Mortgage broker responsibility for the LE"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(1)(ii)(A) such that if a mortgage\nbroker receives a consumer's application, either [LENDER]\
    \ (as\ncreditor) or the broker must provide the consumer with the LE. If\nthe broker provides the required LE, the broker must comply with\n\
    ALL of \xA71026.19(e) \u2014 \"mortgage broker\" reads in place of \"creditor\"\nthroughout \xA71026.19(e). [LENDER] remains responsible for\
    \ ensuring\nbroker-issued LEs comply, and broker-issued LEs that comply satisfy\n[LENDER]'s \xA71026.19(e) obligation.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e1iii-le-timing-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every broker-channel application, does [LENDER]'s broker-management process either (i) issue the LE itself within 3 business\
    \ days of application receipt OR (ii) verify the broker's LE satisfied all \xA71026.19(e) requirements before relying on it, per Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - mortgage-broker
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Mortgage broker responsibilities. Section 1026.19(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that if a mortgage broker receives a consumer's\
      \ application, either the creditor or the mortgage broker must provide the consumer with the disclosures required under \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i)\
      \ in accordance with \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(iii) . Section 1026.19(e)(1)(ii)(A) also provides that if the mortgage broker provides the required\
      \ disclosures, it must comply with all relevant requirements of \xA7 1026.19(e) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the headline portion of Comment

      19(e)(1)(ii)-1; the "mortgage broker reads in place of creditor"

      construction and creditor-ensurance sentences are paraphrased in

      description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the broker-management program ensure that, for every broker-channel application, either the creditor issues the LE within\
    \ 3 business days of application receipt OR the broker's LE is verified to satisfy ALL \xA71026.19(e) requirements (mortgage-broker reading\
    \ in place of creditor) before the creditor relies on it?"
  file_review: "Pull broker-channel files; confirm either a timely creditor LE or a verified broker LE meeting the full \xA71026.19(e) requirement\
    \ set."
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1ii-creditor-still-responsible
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1ii-creditor-still-responsible
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-2: Creditor remains responsible when broker issues LE"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(1)(ii) such that if a broker issues\nthe LE in [LENDER]'s place, [LENDER] remains responsible\
    \ for\nensuring \xA71026.19(e) is satisfied. [LENDER] does NOT satisfy\n\xA71026.19(e)(1)(i) by providing duplicative disclosures, and even\
    \ if\nthe broker provides an erroneous disclosure [LENDER] is responsible\nand may not issue a revised disclosure correcting the broker's\n\
    error. [LENDER] is expected to maintain communication with the\nbroker to ensure broker is acting in place of [LENDER].\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e1iii-le-timing-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s broker-oversight process actively monitor broker-issued LE compliance (without duplicating disclosures), and
    recognize that broker errors are not curable by a fresh [LENDER] LE, per Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-2?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - broker-oversight
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "2. Creditor responsibilities. If a mortgage broker issues any disclosure required under \xA7 1026.19(e) in the creditor's\
      \ place, the creditor remains responsible under \xA7 1026.19(e) for ensuring that the requirements of \xA7 1026.19(e) have been satisfied.\
      \ For example, if a mortgage broker receives a consumer's application and provides the consumer with the disclosures required under \xA7\
      \ 1026.19(e)(1)(i) , the creditor does not satisfy the requirements of \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) if it provides duplicative disclosures to the\
      \ consumer. In the same example, even if the broker provides an erroneous disclosure, the creditor is responsible and may not issue a revised\
      \ disclosure correcting the error. The creditor is expected to maintain communication with the broker to ensure that the broker is acting\
      \ in place of the creditor."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(1)(ii)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the broker-oversight program actively monitor broker-issued LE compliance without duplicating disclosures, and recognize\
    \ that a broker's erroneous LE is not curable by a fresh creditor LE \u2014 maintaining communication to ensure the broker acts in the creditor's\
    \ place?"
  file_review: Pull broker-issued-LE files; confirm no duplicative creditor LE was sent and that any broker error was handled as the creditor's
    responsibility (not a creditor re-disclosure cure).
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1iii-le-3-business-day
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1iii-le-3-business-day
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-1: LE 3-business-day timing"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(1)(iii)(A) such that the LE must\nbe delivered (or placed in the mail) not later than three\
    \ business\ndays after [LENDER] receives the consumer's application. The 3-day\nclock uses the \xA71026.2(a)(6) \"business day\" definition\
    \ \u2014 a day on\nwhich [LENDER]'s offices are open to the public for carrying out\nsubstantially all of its business functions.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e1iii-le-timing-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every covered application [LENDER] receives, can [LENDER] evidence LE delivery or mailing within 3 \xA71026.2(a)(6) business\
    \ days, per Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - le-timing
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Timing and use of estimates. The disclosures required by \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) must be delivered not later than three\
      \ business days after the creditor receives the consumer's application. For example, if an application is received on Monday, the creditor\
      \ satisfies this requirement by either hand delivering the disclosures on or before Thursday, or placing them in the mail on or before Thursday,\
      \ assuming each weekday is a business day. For purposes of \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(iii)(A) , the term \u201Cbusiness day\u201D means a day on\
      \ which the creditor's offices are open to the public for carrying out substantially all of its business functions. See \xA7 1026.2(a)(6)\
      \ ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Do the P&Ps ensure the LE is delivered or placed in the mail no later than 3 \xA71026.2(a)(6) business days after the creditor\
    \ receives the consumer's application?"
  file_review: Pull a sample; confirm LE delivery/mailing fell within 3 business days of application receipt.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1iii-7-business-day-waiting
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1iii-7-business-day-waiting
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-2: 7-business-day pre-consummation waiting period"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(1)(iii)(B) such that the 7-\nbusiness-day waiting period begins when [LENDER] delivers the\
    \ LE\n(or places it in the mail), NOT when the consumer receives or is\nconsidered to have received it. The relevant \"business day\"\ndefinition\
    \ for the 7-day waiting period is the broader \xA71026.2(a)(6)\ndefinition \u2014 all calendar days except Sundays and legal public\nholidays.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e1iii-le-timing-7bd
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every consummation event, does [LENDER] verify that at least 7 \xA71026.2(a)(6) business days (Sat counts; Sun and federal\
    \ holidays excluded) have elapsed since LE delivery/mailing, per Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-2?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - waiting-period
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "2. Waiting period. The seven-business-day waiting period begins when the creditor delivers the disclosures or places them\
      \ in the mail, not when the consumer receives or is considered to have received the disclosures. For example, if a creditor delivers the\
      \ early disclosures to the consumer in person or places them in the mail on Monday, June 1, consummation may occur on or after Tuesday,\
      \ June 9, the seventh business day following delivery or mailing of the early disclosures, because, for the purposes of \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(iii)(B)\
      \ , Saturday is a business day, pursuant to \xA7 1026.2(a)(6) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the closing-management workflow start the 7-business-day waiting period at LE delivery/mailing (not consumer receipt)\
    \ and use the broader \xA71026.2(a)(6) business-day count (Saturdays count; Sundays and legal public holidays excluded)?"
  file_review: Pull consummated files; confirm at least 7 business days elapsed between LE delivery/mailing and consummation.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1vi-shop-permitted-criteria
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e1vi-shop-permitted-criteria
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1: When the creditor permits the consumer to shop"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) such that [LENDER] may\nimpose reasonable qualification requirements on settlement-service\n\
    providers (e.g., appropriate licensing). [LENDER] does NOT permit\nthe consumer to shop if [LENDER] requires the consumer to choose a\nprovider\
    \ from a [LENDER]-provided list. If shopping is not\npermitted, \xA71026.19(e)(1)(vi)(B) and (C) do not apply.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e3ii-10pct-tolerance
  type: do
  audit_question: For every settlement-service category where [LENDER]'s policy is "consumer may shop", does [LENDER] permit the consumer to actually
    select a provider outside its list (subject only to reasonable qualifications), per Comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - shopping
  - tolerance
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Permission to shop. Section 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) permits creditors to impose reasonable requirements regarding the qualifications\
      \ of the provider. For example, the creditor may require that a settlement agent chosen by the consumer must be appropriately licensed in\
      \ the relevant jurisdiction. In contrast, a creditor does not permit a consumer to shop for purposes of \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(vi) if the creditor\
      \ requires the consumer to choose a provider from a list provided by the creditor. Whether the creditor permits the consumer to shop consistent\
      \ with \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) is determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program ensure that, for every settlement-service category designated 'consumer may shop,' the consumer can actually\
    \ select a provider outside any creditor list (subject only to reasonable qualification requirements such as licensing) \u2014 and not be\
    \ required to choose from a creditor-provided list?"
  file_review: Spot-check shop-permitted categories; confirm the consumer was free to choose an off-list provider and was not constrained to a
    creditor list.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iA-fee-restriction-pre-le
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iA-fee-restriction-pre-le
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-1: Pre-LE fee restriction"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(2)(i)(A) such that [LENDER] (or\nany other person) may NOT impose any fee \u2014 application\
    \ fee,\nappraisal fee, underwriting fee, etc. \u2014 until (i) the consumer has\nreceived the LE AND (ii) the consumer has indicated intent\
    \ to\nproceed. The only exception is a bona fide and reasonable\ncredit-report fee under \xA71026.19(e)(2)(i)(B).\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e2i-fee-restriction-pre-le
  type: dont
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s pre-LE fee policy collect ONLY a bona fide reasonable credit-report fee before LE delivery + intent-to-proceed,
    per Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - pre-le-fee-restriction
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Fees restricted. A creditor or other person may not impose any fee, such as for an application, appraisal, or underwriting,\
      \ until the consumer has received the disclosures required by \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) and indicated an intent to proceed with the transaction.\
      \ The only exception to the fee restriction allows the creditor or other person to impose a bona fide and reasonable fee for obtaining a\
      \ consumer's credit report, pursuant to \xA7 1026.19(e)(2)(i)(B) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the pre-LE fee policy collect ONLY a bona fide and reasonable credit-report fee before the consumer has received the LE\
    \ and indicated intent to proceed \u2014 imposing no application, appraisal, underwriting, or other fee?"
  file_review: Pull early-stage files; confirm no fee other than a bona fide credit-report fee was imposed before LE receipt + intent-to-proceed.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iA-fees-imposed-by
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iA-fees-imposed-by
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-5: \"Imposed by\" means requiring payment method"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(2)(i) such that a fee is \"imposed\nby\" a person if the person requires the consumer to\
    \ provide a method\nfor payment, even if the payment is not actually made at that time.\nRequiring a check, credit-card number, or other pre-authorization\n\
    for a non-credit-report fee before LE delivery violates the\nrestriction \u2014 even if the check is held uncashed or the card is not\ncharged\
    \ until after the consumer indicates intent to proceed.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e2i-fee-restriction-pre-le
  type: dont
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s pre-LE intake refrain from collecting checks, payment-method authorizations, or credit-card holds for any fee
    other than a bona fide credit-report fee, per Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-5?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - pre-le-fee-restriction
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(i)(A)-5"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "5. Fees \u201Cimposed by\u201D a person. For purposes of \xA7 1026.19(e) , a fee is \u201Cimposed by\u201D a person if the\
      \ person requires a consumer to provide a method for payment, even if the payment is not made at that time. For example, if a creditor or\
      \ other person requires the consumer to provide a $500 check to pay for a \u201Cprocessing fee\u201D before the consumer receives the disclosures\
      \ required by \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) , the creditor or other person does not comply with \xA7 1026.19(e)(2)(i) , even if the creditor or\
      \ other person had stated that the check will not be cashed until after the disclosures required by \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) are received by\
      \ the consumer and waited until after the consumer subsequently indicated an intent to proceed to cash the check."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      19(e)(2)(i)(A)-5; the credit-card-hold example and bona-fide

      credit-report exception details are paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the pre-LE intake refrain from requiring any payment method \u2014 check, credit-card number, or other pre-authorization\
    \ \u2014 for any fee other than a bona fide credit-report fee, recognizing a fee is 'imposed' even if the check is held uncashed or the card\
    \ is not charged until after intent to proceed?"
  file_review: Spot-check intake records; confirm no payment-method collection (held checks, card holds) occurred pre-LE for non-credit-report
    fees.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iii-no-verification-pre-le
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e2iii-no-verification-pre-le
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(iii)-1: No verification-document requirement pre-LE"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(2)(iii) such that [LENDER] (or a\nbroker) may collect any information it requires before\
    \ issuing the\nLE, but may NOT require the consumer to submit verifying\ndocumentation (e.g., purchase-and-sale agreement, bank statements)\n\
    before delivering the LE. [LENDER] may take the consumer's oral\ninformation about the sale price, account balances, etc., but\ncannot demand\
    \ verifying documents as a precondition of LE delivery.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e1iii-le-timing-3bd
  type: dont
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s pre-LE workflow refrain from requiring document verification (P&S, bank statements, etc.) as a precondition
    to issuing the LE, while still permitted to collect the underlying oral/written information, per Comment 19(e)(2)(iii)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - application-definition
  - verification
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(2)(iii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Requirements. The creditor or other person may collect from the consumer any information that it requires prior to providing\
      \ the early disclosures before or at the same time as collecting the information listed in \xA7 1026.2(a)(3)(ii) . However, the creditor\
      \ or other person is not permitted to require, before providing the disclosures required by \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) , that the consumer submit\
      \ documentation to verify the information collected from the consumer."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      19(e)(2)(iii)-1; the P&S-agreement and bank-statement examples

      from sub-items i and ii are paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the pre-LE workflow refrain from requiring the consumer to submit verifying documentation (purchase-and-sale agreement,
    bank statements, etc.) as a precondition to issuing the LE, while still permitted to collect the underlying oral/written information?
  file_review: Spot-check pre-LE files; confirm verification documents were not demanded before LE issuance.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-good-faith-general-rule
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-good-faith-general-rule
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1: General rule \u2014 zero tolerance for fees subject to \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i)"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i) such that an estimated\nclosing cost disclosed under \xA71026.19(e) is NOT in good\
    \ faith if\nthe charge paid by or imposed on the consumer exceeds the amount\noriginally disclosed. The zero-tolerance category generally\n\
    includes (but is not limited to): fees paid to the creditor; fees\npaid to a mortgage broker; fees paid to an affiliate of either;\nfees paid\
    \ to an unaffiliated third party where the consumer was not\npermitted to shop; and transfer taxes.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e3i-good-faith-zero-tolerance
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s tolerance-cure engine classify creditor fees, broker fees, affiliate fees, no-shop third-party fees, and transfer
    taxes into the zero-tolerance bucket (any increase = cure due), per Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - good-faith
  - zero-tolerance
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Requirement. Section 1026.19(e)(3)(i) provides the general rule that an estimated closing cost disclosed under \xA7 1026.19(e)\
      \ is not in good faith if the charge paid by or imposed on the consumer exceeds the amount originally disclosed under \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i)\
      \ . Although \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(ii) and (iii) provide exceptions to the general rule, the charges that are generally subject to \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i)\
      \ include, but are not limited to, the following:"
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the headline portion of Comment

      19(e)(3)(i)-1; the enumerated zero-tolerance categories (i)-(v)

      are paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the tolerance-cure engine classify creditor fees, mortgage-broker fees, affiliate-of-either fees, no-shop unaffiliated-third-party\
    \ fees, and transfer taxes into the zero-tolerance bucket \u2014 so any increase over the originally-disclosed amount triggers a cure?"
  file_review: Pull closings; confirm each zero-tolerance-category charge at consummation did not exceed its LE amount, and that any increase
    produced a cure.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-lender-credits
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-lender-credits
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-5: Lender credits \u2014 decrease in actual credit = tolerance violation"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i) such that the actual total\namount of lender credits provided that is less than the\
    \ estimated\n\"lender credits\" on the LE is an INCREASED charge to the consumer\nfor purposes of good-faith determination. If the LE discloses\
    \ $750\nlender credits but only $500 is actually provided, [LENDER] has\nnot complied with \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i) and a $250 cure is due.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e3i-good-faith-zero-tolerance
  type: do
  audit_question: For every closing, does [LENDER]'s tolerance-cure engine compare actual lender credit provided to LE-disclosed lender credit
    and trigger a cure when the actual amount is less than disclosed, per Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-5?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - good-faith
  - lender-credits
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-5"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "The actual total amount of lender credits, whether specific or non-specific, provided by the creditor that is less than\
      \ the estimated \u201Clender credits\u201D identified in \xA7 1026.37(g)(6)(ii) and disclosed pursuant to \xA7 1026.19(e) is an increased\
      \ charge to the consumer for purposes of determining good faith under \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative sentence of Comment

      19(e)(3)(i)-5; the worked $750-vs-$500 example and surrounding

      taxonomy are paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the tolerance-cure engine compare actual lender credits provided against the LE-disclosed lender credits and trigger a
    cure whenever the actual amount is less than disclosed (an increased charge to the consumer for good-faith purposes)?
  file_review: Pull closings disclosing lender credits; confirm actual credit provided was not less than disclosed, or that a cure issued for
    the shortfall.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3ii-10pct-aggregate
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3ii-10pct-aggregate
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(ii)-2: 10% tolerance \u2014 aggregate basis"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(3)(ii)(A) such that the 10%\ntolerance is computed on the SUM of all charges in the bucket\
    \ \u2014 not\non individual charges. An individual charge may increase by more\nthan 10% without violation, provided the aggregate of all\
    \ charges\nin the 10%-tolerance bucket does not increase by more than 10%.\nA charge omitted from the LE entirely but then imposed at\nconsummation\
    \ counts toward the aggregate.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e3ii-10pct-tolerance
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s tolerance-cure engine compute the \xA71026.19(e)(3)(ii) 10% increase on the AGGREGATE of all bucket-eligible\
    \ charges (including any newly-added charges) rather than charge-by-charge, per Comment 19(e)(3)(ii)-2?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - good-faith
  - ten-percent-tolerance
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(ii)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "2. Aggregate increase limited to ten percent. Under \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(ii)(A) , whether an individual estimated charge subject\
      \ to \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(ii) is in good faith depends on whether the sum of all charges subject to \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(ii) increases by more\
      \ than 10 percent, regardless of whether a particular charge increases by more than 10 percent. This is true even if an individual charge\
      \ was omitted from the estimate provided under \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) and then imposed at consummation."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      19(e)(3)(ii)-2; the worked $1000/$1100 examples are paraphrased

      in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the tolerance-cure engine test the 10% tolerance on the AGGREGATE sum of all \xA71026.19(e)(3)(ii)-bucket charges (including\
    \ any charge omitted from the LE and then imposed at consummation), not charge-by-charge?"
  file_review: Pull closings; confirm the 10%-bucket cure determination used the aggregate of all bucket-eligible charges, capturing newly-added
    charges.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3iv-actual-increase
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3iv-actual-increase
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-2: Revised disclosures only for charges actually increased by the trigger event"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(3)(iv) such that [LENDER] may\ndetermine good faith based on increased charges in revised\n\
    disclosures only to the extent the revision-reason (changed\ncircumstance, etc.) actually increased the particular charge. For\nexample, a\
    \ rate-lock extension permits revised disclosure of the\nrate-lock-extension fee (capped at [LENDER]'s usual-course fee), but\n[LENDER] may\
    \ NOT use unrelated changed charges as the basis for the\ngood-faith determination.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e4-revised-disclosure-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: When [LENDER] issues a revised LE to reset the tolerance baseline, does the revision reflect ONLY charges actually increased
    by the documented trigger event, capped at usual-course amounts, per Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-2?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - revised-le
  - changed-circumstance
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-2"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "2. Actual increase. A creditor may determine good faith under \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i) and (ii) based on the increased charges\
      \ reflected on revised disclosures only to the extent that the reason for revision, as identified in \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(A) through (F),\
      \ actually increased the particular charge. For example, if a consumer requests a rate lock extension, then the revised disclosures on which\
      \ a creditor relies for purposes of determining good faith under \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i) may reflect a new rate lock extension fee, but the\
      \ fee may be no more than the rate lock extension fee charged by the creditor in its usual course of business, and the creditor may not\
      \ rely on changes to other charges unrelated to the rate lock extension for purposes of determining good faith under \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i)\
      \ and (ii) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-2.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: When the program issues a revised LE to reset the tolerance baseline, does it reflect ONLY the charges the documented revision-reason
    actually increased (e.g., a rate-lock-extension fee capped at the creditor's usual-course amount) and not unrelated changed charges?
  file_review: Pull revised-LE files; confirm the reset reflected only trigger-attributable increases, capped at usual-course amounts, with no
    unrelated charges folded in.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3iv-documentation
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3iv-documentation
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-3: Documentation requirement for revised disclosures"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(e)(3)(iv) such that [LENDER] must\nretain records (per \xA71026.25) demonstrating compliance\
    \ with\n\xA71026.19(e). For revised disclosures issued due to a changed\ncircumstance, [LENDER] must be able to document the original\nestimate,\
    \ explain the reason for revision and how it affected\nsettlement costs, show that the corrected disclosure increased the\nestimate only to\
    \ the extent the trigger actually increased the\ncost, and show that the \xA71026.19(e)(4) timing requirements were\nsatisfied.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-e4-revised-disclosure-3bd
  type: maintain
  audit_question: "For every revised LE [LENDER] uses to reset tolerance, does the loan file contain (i) original estimate, (ii) revision-reason\
    \ and cost-impact explanation, (iii) proof actual increase \u2264 trigger-attributable cost, and (iv) \xA71026.19(e)(4) timing proof, per\
    \ Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-3?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - revised-le
  - recordkeeping
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)-3"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "3. Documentation requirement. In order to comply with \xA7 1026.25 , creditors must retain records demonstrating compliance\
      \ with the requirements of \xA7 1026.19(e) . For example, if revised disclosures are provided because of a changed circumstance under \xA7\
      \ 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(A) affecting settlement costs, the creditor must be able to show compliance with \xA7 1026.19(e) by documenting the\
      \ original estimate of the cost at issue, explaining the reason for revision and how it affected settlement costs, showing that the corrected\
      \ disclosure increased the estimate only to the extent that the reason for revision actually increased the cost, and showing that the timing\
      \ requirements of \xA7 1026.19(e)(4) were satisfied."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      19(e)(3)(iv)-3; the "single corrected disclosure may reflect

      multiple changed circumstances" sentence is omitted.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Do the P&Ps require, for every revised LE used to reset tolerance, retention (per \xA71026.25) of (i) the original estimate,\
    \ (ii) the revision-reason and cost-impact explanation, (iii) proof the actual increase was no more than the trigger actually increased the\
    \ cost, and (iv) \xA71026.19(e)(4) timing proof?"
  file_review: Pull revised-LE files; confirm all four documentation elements are present in the loan file.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f1ii-cd-3-business-day
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f1ii-cd-3-business-day
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(f)(1)(ii)-1: CD 3-business-day pre-consummation receipt"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(f)(1)(ii)(A) such that the CD must\nbe RECEIVED by the consumer no later than three business\
    \ days\nbefore consummation. For purposes of \xA71026.19(f)(1)(ii) the term\n\"business day\" means all calendar days except Sundays and legal\n\
    public holidays referred to in \xA71026.2(a)(6) (i.e., Saturday IS a\nbusiness day under this rule).\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-f1ii-cd-timing-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every consummation event, does [LENDER] verify the consumer RECEIVED the CD at least 3 business days (using the \xA71026.2(a)(6)\
    \ all-calendar-days-except-Sundays-and-holidays definition) before the scheduled consummation date, per Comment 19(f)(1)(ii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - cd-timing
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(f)(1)(ii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Timing. Except as provided in \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(ii)(B) , (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), and (f)(2)(v), the disclosures\
      \ required by \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(i) must be received by the consumer no later than three business days before consummation. For example,\
      \ if consummation is scheduled for Thursday, the creditor satisfies this requirement by hand delivering the disclosures on Monday, assuming\
      \ each weekday is a business day. For purposes of \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(ii) , the term \u201Cbusiness day\u201D means all calendar days except\
      \ Sundays and legal public holidays referred to in \xA7 1026.2(a)(6) . See comment 2(a)(6)-2."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(f)(1)(ii)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the closing-management workflow verify the consumer RECEIVED the CD at least 3 business days before consummation, using\
    \ the \xA71026.2(a)(6) all-calendar-days-except-Sundays-and-legal-public-holidays count (Saturday counts)?"
  file_review: Pull consummated files; confirm CD receipt at least 3 business days before consummation.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f1iii-receipt-presumption-3-day
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f1iii-receipt-presumption-3-day
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(f)(1)(iii)-1: 3-day mailbox-rule receipt presumption"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(f)(1)(iii) such that if the CD is\nnot provided to the consumer in person, the consumer is considered\n\
    to have RECEIVED the CD three business days after [LENDER]\ndelivers or places it in the mail. [LENDER] may alternatively rely\non evidence\
    \ that the consumer received the CD earlier.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-f1ii-cd-timing-3bd
  type: do
  audit_question: For every non-in-person CD delivery, does [LENDER] add a 3-business-day mailbox presumption to the delivery/mailing date when
    computing CD-receipt-vs-consummation timing (unless contradicting receipt evidence exists), per Comment 19(f)(1)(iii)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - receipt-presumption
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(f)(1)(iii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Mail delivery. Section 1026.19(f)(1)(iii) provides that, if any disclosures required under \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(i) are\
      \ not provided to the consumer in person, the consumer is considered to have received the disclosures three business days after they are\
      \ delivered or placed in the mail. If the creditor delivers the disclosures required under \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(i) in person, consummation\
      \ may occur any time on the third business day following delivery. If the creditor provides the disclosures by mail, the consumer is considered\
      \ to have received them three business days after they are placed in the mail, for purposes of determining when the three-business-day waiting\
      \ period required under \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(ii)(A) begins."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      19(f)(1)(iii)-1; the "rely on earlier-receipt evidence" sentence

      is paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: For non-in-person CD delivery, does the workflow add the 3-business-day mailbox-rule receipt presumption to the delivery/mailing
    date when computing receipt-vs-consummation timing, unless the creditor relies on evidence of earlier actual receipt?
  file_review: Pull mailed/non-in-person CD files; confirm the 3-day presumption (or documented earlier-receipt evidence) was applied to the timing
    calculation.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f2ii-three-triggers-new-waiting
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f2ii-three-triggers-new-waiting
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(f)(2)(ii)-1: Three triggers that restart the 3-day CD waiting period"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(f)(2)(ii) such that ONLY three\npre-consummation changes restart the 3-business-day CD waiting\n\
    period: (i) the APR becomes inaccurate (per \xA71026.22), (ii) the\nloan product changes, or (iii) a prepayment penalty is added. All\nother\
    \ pre-consummation changes require a corrected CD at or before\nconsummation under \xA71026.19(f)(2)(i) but do NOT restart the waiting\nperiod.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-f2ii-new-waiting-period-triggers
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s closing-management workflow distinguish \"redisclose at consummation\" changes (\xA71026.19(f)(2)(i)) from\
    \ \"restart 3-day waiting period\" changes (only APR-inaccurate / product-change / prepay-penalty-added per \xA71026.19(f)(2)(ii)) per Comment\
    \ 19(f)(2)(ii)-1?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - three-trigger
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(f)(2)(ii)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Conditions for corrected disclosures. Pursuant to \xA7 1026.19(f)(2)(ii) , if, at the time of consummation, the annual\
      \ percentage rate becomes inaccurate, the loan product changes, or a prepayment penalty is added to the transaction, the creditor must provide\
      \ corrected disclosures with all changed terms so that the consumer receives them not later than the third business day before consummation."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the headline portion of Comment

      19(f)(2)(ii)-1; the cross-references and worked examples are

      paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the closing-management workflow distinguish 'redisclose at/before consummation' changes (\xA71026.19(f)(2)(i)) from the\
    \ ONLY three changes that restart the 3-business-day CD waiting period \u2014 APR becomes inaccurate, loan product changes, or a prepayment\
    \ penalty is added (\xA71026.19(f)(2)(ii))?"
  file_review: Spot-check changed-terms files; confirm a new waiting period was observed only for the three restart triggers, and that other changes
    got a corrected CD without a restart.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f2v-60-day-refund
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f2v-60-day-refund
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(f)(2)(v)-1: 60-day tolerance refund mechanism"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(f)(2)(v) such that if amounts paid\nat consummation exceed the \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i) or (ii)\
    \ tolerance,\n[LENDER] does not violate \xA71026.19(e)(1)(i) if it refunds the\nexcess to the consumer no later than 60 days after consummation,\n\
    and does not violate \xA71026.19(f)(1)(i) if it delivers a corrected\nCD reflecting the refund no later than 60 days after consummation.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-f2v-refund-60d
  type: do
  audit_question: For every tolerance-violation cure, does [LENDER] refund the consumer AND deliver a corrected CD reflecting the refund, both
    no later than 60 days post-consummation, per Comment 19(f)(2)(v)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - tolerance-refund
  - sixty-day
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(f)(2)(v)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Requirements. Section 1026.19(f)(2)(v) provides that, if amounts paid at consummation exceed the amounts specified under\
      \ \xA7 1026.19(e)(3)(i) or (ii), the creditor does not violate \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(i) if the creditor refunds the excess to the consumer\
      \ no later than 60 days after consummation, and the creditor does not violate \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(i) if the creditor delivers or places in\
      \ the mail disclosures corrected to reflect the refund of such excess no later than 60 days after consummation."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the headline portion of Comment

      19(f)(2)(v)-1; the worked four-charge example is paraphrased in

      description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the program ensure that, where amounts paid at consummation exceeded the \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i)/(ii) tolerance, the creditor\
    \ both refunds the excess to the consumer AND delivers a corrected CD reflecting the refund, each no later than 60 days after consummation?"
  file_review: Pull tolerance-cure files; confirm both the refund and the corrected CD landed within 60 days of consummation.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f3i-actual-charge-rule
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19f3i-actual-charge-rule
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(f)(3)(i)-1: CD charges must not exceed actual amounts received by service provider"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(f)(3)(i) such that the amount imposed\non the consumer for any settlement service shall NOT\
    \ exceed the\namount actually received by the settlement service provider for\nthat service. A creditor violates \xA71026.19(f)(3)(i) if the\
    \ amount\nimposed on the consumer exceeds the amount received by the provider\n\u2014 except where average-charge pricing under \xA71026.19(f)(3)(ii)\
    \ is\nused.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-f2iii-post-consummation-30d
  type: dont
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s CD-population engine prevent disclosing or charging a settlement-service fee greater than the amount actually
    paid to the service provider (absent compliant average-charge program), per Comment 19(f)(3)(i)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - actual-charge
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(f)(3)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Requirements. Section 1026.19(f)(3)(i) provides the general rule that the amount imposed on the consumer for any settlement\
      \ service shall not exceed the amount actually received by the settlement service provider for that service. Except as otherwise provided\
      \ in \xA7 1026.19(f)(3)(ii) , a creditor violates \xA7 1026.19(f)(3)(i) if the amount imposed upon the consumer exceeds the amount actually\
      \ received by the service provider for that service."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(f)(3)(i)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the CD-population engine prevent disclosing or charging a settlement-service fee greater than the amount actually received\
    \ by that service provider, except where a compliant \xA71026.19(f)(3)(ii) average-charge program applies?"
  file_review: Pull closings; confirm each settlement-service charge on the CD did not exceed the amount the provider actually received (absent
    a compliant average-charge program).
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19g1-booklet-3-business-days
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19g1-booklet-3-business-days
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(g)(1)-3: Special information booklet delivery within 3 business days of application"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.19(g)(1)(i) such that [LENDER] must\ndeliver or place in the mail the special information booklet\
    \ not\nlater than three business days after the consumer's application is\nreceived. [LENDER] need not provide the booklet if it denies the\n\
    application or if the consumer withdraws the application before\nthe end of the 3-business-day period under \xA71026.19(e)(1)(iii)(A).\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.19-g-special-info-booklet
  type: do
  audit_question: For every covered TRID application, does [LENDER] deliver or mail the special information booklet within 3 business days of
    receipt (suppressing only when application denied or withdrawn within that window), per Comment 19(g)(1)-3?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: loan_officer
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - special-info-booklet
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(g)(1)-3"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "3. Consumer's application. Section 1026.19(g)(1)(i) requires that the creditor deliver or place in the mail the special\
      \ information booklet not later than three business days after the consumer's application is received. \u201CApplication\u201D is defined\
      \ in \xA7 1026.2(a)(3)(ii) . The creditor need not provide the booklet under \xA7 1026.19(g)(1)(i) when it denies an application or if the\
      \ consumer withdraws the application before the end of the three-business-day period under \xA7 1026.19(e)(1)(iii)(A) . See comment 19(e)(1)(iii)-3\
      \ for additional guidance on denied or withdrawn applications."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 19(g)(1)-3.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Do the P&Ps ensure the special information booklet is delivered or placed in the mail within 3 business days of receiving the\
    \ consumer's application, suppressing only where the application is denied or the consumer withdraws before the end of the \xA71026.19(e)(1)(iii)(A)\
    \ 3-business-day period?"
  file_review: Pull covered-application files; confirm booklet delivery within 3 business days, or a denial/withdrawal within the window.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a4-date-issued
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a4-date-issued
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 37(a)(4)-1: \"Date issued\" on the LE = mailing/delivery date"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.37(a)(4) such that the \"date issued\"\ndisclosed on the LE is the date [LENDER] mails or delivers\
    \ the LE\nto the consumer. The method of delivery does NOT affect the date\nissued \u2014 if [LENDER] hand-delivers on August 14 OR places\
    \ the LE\nin the mail on August 14, the date disclosed is August 14.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.37-a4-date-issued
  type: do
  audit_question: For every LE [LENDER] issues, does the "date issued" field display the actual delivery/mailing date (not the LE preparation
    date, not the application receipt date), per Comment 37(a)(4)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - date-issued
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 37(a)(4)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Applicable date. Section 1026.37(a)(4) requires disclosure of the date the creditor mails or delivers the Loan Estimate\
      \ to the consumer. The creditor's method of delivery does not affect the date issued. For example, if the creditor hand delivers the Loan\
      \ Estimate to the consumer on August 14, or if the creditor places the Loan Estimate in the mail on August 14, the date disclosed under\
      \ \xA7 1026.37(a)(4) is August 14."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 37(a)(4)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the LE-generation logic populate 'date issued' with the actual mailing/delivery date (delivery method irrelevant), not
    the LE preparation date or the application-receipt date?
  file_review: Pull LEs; confirm the 'date issued' field equals the actual delivery/mailing date.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a7-estimated-property-value
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a7-estimated-property-value
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 37(a)(7)-1: Refinance estimated property value"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.37(a)(7)(ii) such that in transactions\nwith no seller (e.g., refinance), [LENDER] discloses the\
    \ estimated\nvalue of the property based on the best information reasonably\navailable at the time. [LENDER] may use the consumer-provided\n\
    estimate at application UNLESS [LENDER] has performed its own\nestimate by the time the LE is provided, in which case [LENDER]\nmust use its\
    \ own. If an appraisal/valuation has been obtained,\n[LENDER] uses the value to be used during underwriting.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.37-headline-le-content
  type: do
  audit_question: For every refinance/non-seller LE, does [LENDER]'s property-value population logic prefer [LENDER]'s own appraisal/valuation
    over consumer-provided estimate when [LENDER] has its own estimate at LE issuance, per Comment 37(a)(7)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: underwriter
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - property-value
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 37(a)(7)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Estimated property value. In transactions where there is no seller, such as in a refinancing, \xA7 1026.37(a)(7)(ii)\
      \ requires the creditor to disclose the estimated value of the property identified in \xA7 1026.37(a)(6) based on the best information reasonably\
      \ available to the creditor at the time the disclosure is provided to the consumer, which may include, at the creditor's option, the estimated\
      \ value of the improvements to be made on the property in transactions involving construction. The creditor may use the estimate provided\
      \ by the consumer at application unless it has performed its own estimate of the property value by the time the disclosure is provided to\
      \ the consumer, in which case the creditor must use its own estimate."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      37(a)(7)-1; the appraisal-selection and seller-transaction

      sentences are paraphrased in description.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: For no-seller/refinance transactions, does the property-value population logic disclose value based on the best information
    reasonably available, preferring the creditor's own estimate/appraisal over the consumer-provided estimate whenever the creditor has performed
    its own by the time the LE is provided?
  file_review: Pull refinance/no-seller LEs; confirm the disclosed value used the creditor's own estimate/appraisal where one existed at LE issuance,
    else the consumer estimate.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a12-unique-loan-id
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-37a12-unique-loan-id
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 37(a)(12)-1: Loan ID # must be unique"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.37(a)(12) such that the Loan ID number\non the LE must allow identification of the particular credit\n\
    transaction. [LENDER] must use a UNIQUE Loan ID \u2014 it may not use\nthe same number for different (but related) loan transactions\n(such\
    \ as different loans to the same borrower). On revised LEs, the\nLoan ID must remain sufficient to identify the transaction.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.37-headline-le-content
  type: do
  audit_question: Does [LENDER]'s Loan ID generation guarantee uniqueness across all loans (no shared IDs between related loans to the same borrower),
    and propagate unchanged across LE revisions of the same transaction, per Comment 37(a)(12)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - loan-estimate
  - loan-id
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 37(a)(12)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Unique identifier. Section 1026.37(a)(12) requires that the creditor disclose a loan identification number that may be\
      \ used by the creditor, consumer, and other parties to identify the transaction, labeled as \u201CLoan ID # .\u201D The loan identification\
      \ number is determined by the creditor, which number may contain any alpha-numeric characters. Because the number must allow for the identification\
      \ of the particular credit transaction under \xA7 1026.37(a)(12) , a creditor must use a unique loan identification number, i.e., the creditor\
      \ may not use the same loan identification number for different, but related, loan transactions (such as different loans to the same borrower).\
      \ Where a creditor issues a revised Loan Estimate for a transaction, the loan identification number must be sufficient to enable identification\
      \ of the transaction pursuant to \xA7 1026.37(a)(12) ."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 37(a)(12)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does Loan ID generation guarantee a unique identifier per credit transaction (no shared ID across different-but-related loans
    to the same borrower) and propagate the ID unchanged so revised LEs still identify the same transaction?
  file_review: Spot-check Loan IDs across related loans and across LE revisions; confirm uniqueness per transaction and consistency across revisions.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38-good-faith-actual-terms
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38-good-faith-actual-terms
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38-3: CD must reflect actual terms"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.38 such that the CD must reflect the\nACTUAL terms of the legal obligation and the actual costs\n\
    associated with settlement. [LENDER] and settlement agents may\nestimate per \xA71026.19(f)(1)(i) when the actual term/cost is unknown\nat\
    \ disclosure time, but the underlying obligation is to match\nactuality.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.38-headline-cd-content
  type: do
  audit_question: "Does [LENDER]'s CD-generation workflow populate from actual final settlement-document amounts (rather than LE estimates) and\
    \ reserve \xA71026.19(f)(1)(i) estimation only for genuinely-unknown terms at issuance, per Comment 38-3?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - actual-terms
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 38-3"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "3. Good faith requirement. The disclosures required by \xA7 1026.38 are required to reflect the actual terms of the legal\
      \ obligation between the parties, and the actual costs associated with the settlement of the transaction. Creditors and settlement agents\
      \ may estimate disclosures as provided pursuant to \xA7 1026.19(f)(1)(i) when the actual term or cost is unknown at the time the disclosures\
      \ are made."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the operative portion of Comment

      38-3; the cross-reference sentences are omitted.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the CD-generation workflow populate from the actual terms of the legal obligation and actual settlement costs (not LE\
    \ estimates), reserving \xA71026.19(f)(1)(i) estimation only for terms/costs genuinely unknown at disclosure time?"
  file_review: Pull CDs; confirm amounts reflect actual final settlement-document figures, with estimation used only where the actual term/cost
    was unknown.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38a5v-loan-id-matches-le
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38a5v-loan-id-matches-le
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(a)(5)(v)-1: CD Loan ID must enable LE\u2194CD identification"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.38(a)(5)(v) such that the Loan ID on\nthe CD must allow [LENDER], the consumer, and other parties\
    \ to\nidentify the transaction as the same transaction disclosed on the\nLE. If [LENDER] uses the same Loan ID on several revised LEs\nappended\
    \ with a hyphen + sequence number, [LENDER] discloses the\nLoan ID BEFORE the hyphen on the CD to identify the transaction.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.38-a3-closing-information
  type: do
  audit_question: For every CD, does [LENDER] populate the Loan ID such that it matches the LE Loan ID (or, if revised-LE hyphenation was used,
    the root-portion of the LE Loan ID), per Comment 38(a)(5)(v)-1?
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - loan-id
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \u2014 Comment 38(a)(5)(v)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: "1. Same identification number as Loan Estimate. The loan identification number disclosed pursuant to \xA7 1026.38(a)(5)(v)\
      \ must be one that enables the creditor, consumer, and other parties to identify the transaction as the same transaction disclosed on the\
      \ Loan Estimate. The loan identification number may contain any alpha-numeric characters. If a creditor uses the same loan identification\
      \ number on several revised Loan Estimates to the consumer, but adds after such number a hyphen and a number to denote the number of revised\
      \ Loan Estimates in sequence, the creditor must disclose the loan identification number before such hyphen on the Closing Disclosure to\
      \ identify the transaction as the same for which the initial and revised Loan Estimates were provided."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(a)(5)(v)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the CD-population engine set the Loan ID so it identifies the transaction as the same one disclosed on the LE \u2014 using\
    \ the root portion before any hyphen-plus-sequence suffix the creditor appended on revised LEs?"
  file_review: Spot-check CD-vs-LE Loan IDs; confirm the CD ID matches the LE ID (root portion where revised-LE hyphenation was used).
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38c1-escrow-analysis
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-38c1-escrow-analysis
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 38(c)(1)-1: Escrow-analysis-driven CD escrow may differ from LE"
  description: "The Bureau interprets \xA71026.38(c)(1) such that the amount of\nestimated escrow payments disclosed on the CD is ACCURATE if\
    \ it\ndiffers from the estimated escrow payment disclosed on the LE\nbecause of the escrow account analysis described in Reg X\n\xA71024.17.\
    \ The CD escrow may move from the LE escrow without\ntriggering a tolerance violation if the change is driven by the\ninitial-escrow-analysis\
    \ math.\n"
  interprets: reg-z-1026.38-headline-cd-content
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every CD where the escrow payment differs from LE, does [LENDER]'s reconciliation document the \xA71024.17 escrow-analysis\
    \ basis (and not flag the difference as a tolerance violation), per Comment 38(c)(1)-1?"
  workflow_phase: origination
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: ''
  cadence: per-application
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-z
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - trid
  - closing-disclosure
  - escrow
  - promoted
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: "Supplement I to 12 CFR Part 1026 \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_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: 1. Escrow account analysis. The amount of estimated escrow payments disclosed on the Closing Disclosure is accurate if it
      differs from the estimated escrow payment disclosed on the Loan Estimate because of the escrow account analysis described in Regulation
      X, 12 CFR 1024.17 .
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T14:00Z. Substring is the full Comment 38(c)(1)-1.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: "Does the overall program account for the escrow-analysis exception \u2014 treating a CD estimated-escrow-payment that differs\
    \ from the LE as accurate when the difference results from the Reg X \xA71024.17 escrow account analysis, rather than flagging it as a tolerance\
    \ violation?"
  file_review: "Spot-check CDs where escrow differs from the LE; confirm the difference is documented to the \xA71024.17 escrow-analysis basis\
    \ and not treated as a violation."
  judgment: false
- id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-good-faith-general-rule-enumerated-items
  canonical_id: reg-z-1026-supp-i-19e3i-good-faith-general-rule-enumerated-items
  section: "Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1: General rule \u2014 zero tolerance for fees subject to \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i) \u2014 enumerated\
    \ items (chapeau recall fix)"
  description: "The enumerated provisions following the chapeau of Supplement I \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1: General rule \u2014 zero tolerance\
    \ for fees subject to \xA71026.19(e)(3)(i), 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 1026 \u2014 Comment 19(e)(3)(i)-1"
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1026
    snapshot_id: b915082e5abf3c45
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
    paragraph_quote: i. Fees paid to the creditor. ii. Fees paid to a mortgage broker. iii. Fees paid to an affiliate of the creditor or a mortgage
      broker. iv. Fees paid to an unaffiliated third party if the creditor did not permit the consumer to shop for a third party service provider
      for a settlement service. v. Transfer taxes.
    drafter_attestation: "Captured verbatim (whitespace-normalized) from snapshot b915082e5abf3c45 as the enumerated list immediately following\
      \ the chapeau ', but are not limited to, the following:'. List boundary captured conservatively \u2014 REVIEW the end boundary before promote."
  judgment: false
  promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:35:54+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  source_provenance:
    source_id: reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T11:32:43Z'
    content_hash: sha256:a95287c63016b477746851f449780a22585afe510e5e03f05356aba0dd0448f1
_promotion_history:
- promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:19:05+00:00'
  candidate_path: obligations\_remediation\_round_b_drafts\reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-roundb-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 26
  candidates_skipped_existing: 0
- promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:35:54+00:00'
  candidate_path: C:\Users\earlc\broker-tools\obligations\_remediation\chapeau-recall\reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 1
  candidates_skipped_existing: 0
- promoted_at: '2026-06-16T19:38:25+00:00'
  candidate_path: C:\Users\earlc\broker-tools\obligations\_remediation\chapeau-recall\reg-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-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-z-1026-supplement-i-trid-chapeau-recall-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 0
  candidates_skipped_existing: 1
