If you send a timely DV, its impact is to impose a cease collection bar on the debt collector until such time as they choose to provide the requested debt validation.
They have no period in which they must validate, and in the interim, they cannot negotiate a settlement or PFD with you due to the cease collection bar.
So you are in a state of limbo that only they can remove, unless you simply send payment in full, with no conditions of negotiation.
You would have to either wait for their response, or rescind your DV request if you wish to negotiate with them.
However, if your DV was not timely, meaning it was sent more than 30 days after their dunning notice, it imposed nothing on the debt collector, and was simply an informal request that they chould choose to ignore. They could, if still within SOL, choose to initiate legal action.
The recommendation to send them a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8) would require documentation of some inaccuracy in reporting on their part.
Unlike a DV, which does not reqquire any documentation of an error, a dispute imposes that initial burden, so should not be sent if you have no basis for shwoing of an inaccuracy.
While a direct dispute would impose a 30-day period for their response, they could simply state that they verify whatever your dispute, thus concluding the dispute.
Settling and then sending a direct dispute makes no sense to me.
If you have a real issue, you would resolve it before paying the debt.
