Yes, it is Option 3, then Option 1.
I find it amusing as well and make a point to let as many people know about it as possible any time one of these threads comes up. I figure, at some point something has got to give. Either CCT will have to start including more pulls/scores with their "real" monthly memberships or they'll have to lessen the "value" of the $1 trial by either making it more expensive or providing less for that $1. You've got to figure that over time, more and more people will jump on board with the trials which will cut into their memberships. Basically, their current business plan isn't sustainable for the long term, IMO. But, for now, we'll all enjoy it 
@Anonymous wrote:I find it amusing as well and make a point to let as many people know about it as possible any time one of these threads comes up. I figure, at some point something has got to give. Either CCT will have to start including more pulls/scores with their "real" monthly memberships or they'll have to lessen the "value" of the $1 trial by either making it more expensive or providing less for that $1. You've got to figure that over time, more and more people will jump on board with the trials which will cut into their memberships. Basically, their current business plan isn't sustainable for the long term, IMO. But, for now, we'll all enjoy it
I guess it really depends on the economics of it from a business standpoint.
What is the actual cost of them pulling your reports (is there actually a cost to that aside from running the servers to make the requests?), running the requisite calculations, and showing it to you in a pretty dashboard?
Some percentage of people either won't realize you can keep canceling/reopening a new trial or will just see that as inconvenient and not do it even if you get more reports that way.
Knowing that percentage and what a trial membership costs them as a company you can calculate their "average cost of acquisition" for a paying membership.
Combine that with data on how long the average member maintains their membership (and whether they get the 50% off thing or not) and you can get the "average lifetime value" of a customer.
If the cost of acquisition is less than the lifetime value, then even if a bunch of us never become paying members it can still be a sustainable model.
Which is not to say that they aren't leaving money on the table and/or that they won't change things when they hit some critical mass or realize what's going on. But it is theoretically possible that they've actually done the math and decided this is just an acceptible marketing expense.
@Anonymous wrote:I agree with all of that, and I also don't imagine that the cost of generating scores is all too great. That said, I'm surprised that they simply don't add more score pulls (say weekly) with the monthly membership cost. I bet if there were weekly pulls with scores associated with the "real" membership they'd get far more people to join, and a good portion of guys like me that just rock out a million trials could even consider moving over to a real recurring monthly membership.
LIcensing costs are substantial. Look at what EX and MF *both* charge for FICO 8... I don't know if I'll ever work for a bank again but if I do I'm going to see if I can find out how much they pay for a score and a pull; granted there are likely discounts for reporters and volume use presumably but still.
