Disputes Vs M2C Method-Prodigy!
There is no effort to dispute inaccuracies in Prodigy, because inaccuracy is not needed to contest METRO2 compliance and have any non-compliant account removed..
The tactic here is compliance-based not dispute based.
Disputes argue about what is being said,
The Metro 2 Compliance Method we utilize in Prodigy is not disputing anything but instead demanding evidence that the teller has retained the lawful and conditional PRIVILEGE to report. We essentially Contest (argue against) report-ability , demand removal from reporting claims at least until there exists and I’d physically demonstrated undeniable confirmation of the reporting had been conducted in the mandated certified compliant manner with absolutely zero deviations from the established requisites of the required utilized Metro 2 Data filled field formatted standards of ethical and lawful reporting.
This tactic suggests if unable to confirm certified compliant reporting absent of any deviations of standards at all then it’d be impossible to assume that the entities involved with the reporting of alleged negativity in fact did so to the degree deemed minimally required to retain ability to report lawfully–> which is minimally to a degree of maximum possible accuracy AND maximum possible completeness. Fact is, the parties involved COULD HAVE ENSURED REPORTED CLAIMS OF NEGATIVITY WAS REPORTED IN THE NECESSARY CONFIRMED AND CERTIFIED COMPLIANT MANNER!
ANY DEVIATION OF THESE STANDARDS JEOPARDIZES THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA. IF DATA’S INTEGRITY IS QUESTIONABLE HOW CAN THERE HAVE BEEN A SUCCESSFUL ADHERENCE TO THE FEDERAL REPORTING LAW’S REQUIREMENT OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY AND COMPLETION?
IF UNABLE TO CERTIFY COMPLIANT REPORTING, ITS LOGICAL there is the INABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE EVEN THAT THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING THE RETAINED PRIVILEGE TO REPORT EXISTS.
Reporting is a CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.
CONSUMERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND PROOF OF RIGHTFUL AND FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE REPORTING OF ANY CLAIM VERSUS THE CONSUMER, REGARDLESS OF CLAIM’S VALIDITY in regards to physically verified/ verifiable truth of claim(s), correctness of claim(s), timeliness of claim(s), established/ establishsble ownership of responsibility(ies) of claim(s), and undeniable confirmation of claim(s)’ absoluteness else wise even to the minimally required adherence to the mandated utilized perfect and complete Metro 2 Format reporting standards without omittances nor devistions otherwise!
Unable to establish retainment of that above mentioned conditional PRIVILEGE to report, any reporting made despite this deficiency or inability to prove no deficiency exists surely makes any such reporting not of trusted integrity ( credit mafia’s own admission mind you, see crsa 3-4).
So we care not to argue against what is said, but before one even says anything is the privelege to do so in existence?
Testimony of those without privilege to report is undoubtably insubmital should a suit ever arise, else why even have rules?
Again, disputing argues facts of what is said,
M2C Method argues for establishing First the conditional Privilege to report, which MUST BE DONE SO IN A CONFIRMED PERFECT AND COMPLETE CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT MANNER , EVEN TO THE REQUISITE UTILIZED METRO 2 FORMAT WITHOUT DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS, INCLUDING ANY OMITTENCE OF ANY REQUISITE REPORTED FIELD OF INFORMATION.