What a mess! Can you tell what’s going on?
From the top, the fifth entry, which is the inactive alert, and the first two entries are for the same card, while the third and fourth entries are for another card and the reason exclusively that my score dropped from 850 to the $0 baseline score of 844. The sleeping beauty card is an authorized user card; it's not used for my utilization and apparently did not prompt a score change for waking up after a nap of nearly fours years.
Also, it appears that a balance as small as $4 gets reported.
@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:
What a mess! Can you tell what’s going on?
From the top, the fifth entry, which is the inactive alert, and the first two entries are for the same card, while the third and fourth entries are for another card and the reason exclusively that my score dropped from 850 to the $0 baseline score of 844. The sleeping beauty card is an authorized user card; it's not used for my utilization and apparently did not prompt a score change for waking up after a nap of nearly fours years.
Also, it appears that a balance as small as $4 gets reported.
There's no causal relationship between the score changes and the alerts
When was the last EQ update prior to this? Is this all the EQ alerts, or only a select list?
Interesting that you are getting "Account has increased / decreased by 100%" in addition to the amount change. I get no such separate alert, and I have had a number of accounts going to and from $0 reporting recently.
@SouthJamaica wrote:
There's no causal relationship between the score changes and the alerts
There is, on a certain level. Most alerts, especially those where a card is going to or from $0, will have a score change. Your statement is correct if modified to warn that "there is no specific relationship between one score change and one alert without further review of the other factors in the score change that might not get an alert". 
@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:
What a mess! Can you tell what’s going on?
From the top, the fifth entry, which is the inactive alert, and the first two entries are for the same card, while the third and fourth entries are for another card and the reason exclusively that my score dropped from 850 to the $0 baseline score of 844. The sleeping beauty card is an authorized user card; it's not used for my utilization and apparently did not prompt a score change for waking up after a nap of nearly fours years.
Also, it appears that a balance as small as $4 gets reported.
I get these as well with myFico alerts - but it appears - only for EQ. For TU, I get alert for the overall balance changing. All of my accounts are new (< 1yr) so that may also have something to do with it, I don't know. So far, they only resulted in a score change when (the first card reported changed my % of cards reporting that prompted a slight drop in score) and when all my cards went from reporting zero balance to having a balance. The subsequent cards reporting a balance resulted in no change (assuming because the % of cards reporting resulted in a more favorable percentage)
Also, btw, my EQ score also increased by +4 points only to have those points taken away later the same day - so the net change was 0 - (yours was +6 then -6, mine was +4 then -4).
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:
What a mess! Can you tell what’s going on?
From the top, the fifth entry, which is the inactive alert, and the first two entries are for the same card, while the third and fourth entries are for another card and the reason exclusively that my score dropped from 850 to the $0 baseline score of 844. The sleeping beauty card is an authorized user card; it's not used for my utilization and apparently did not prompt a score change for waking up after a nap of nearly fours years.
Also, it appears that a balance as small as $4 gets reported.
There's no causal relationship between the score changes and the alerts
This is a controlled test, which argues strongly for causality in this case . In general you're correct of course, but this test was designed to test whether my-own-fico's AU's were counting or not.
@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:
What a mess! Can you tell what’s going on?
From the top, the fifth entry, which is the inactive alert, and the first two entries are for the same card, while the third and fourth entries are for another card and the reason exclusively that my score dropped from 850 to the $0 baseline score of 844. The sleeping beauty card is an authorized user card; it's not used for my utilization and apparently did not prompt a score change for waking up after a nap of nearly fours years.
Also, it appears that a balance as small as $4 gets reported.
Grin. I've never known whether sleeping beauties counted or not, I know we used to discuss tradelines getting discounted after being idle for a while but I sort of wonder if that was just speculation based on the inactive setting in Scorewatch which is clearly a configurable anti-fraud measure rather than anything meaningful in the algorithm necessarily. We get a lot of sloppy data points these days, to some folks points I do have to agree that some of the old data people collected and called truth was probably just as sloppy as what we see now.
The 46 month inactive though is impressive haha.
Some lenders will report balances as low as $1 and maybe even $0.01 though I never tried figuring out rounding on something so inconsequential; however, at some point some lenders started not reporting a balance / generating a statement and just crediting back certain amounts and that line varies some by lender. When I need to get clean I just leave like $10 since I figure everyone will generate a statement for that amount and I've never seen changes for small balance changes in the times I've been monitoring my file closely. Cap One was just fine on $3 though as a recent accidental data point on that.
Just for completeness I assume the $14 balance and the $14 payoff were one and the same card vis a vis Chase or similar with a midcycle report? Solid test though bud, now the big deal would be to find someone's AU which does count, and then have you two (or more) start comparing files haha. I can't believe out of all the screams that occurred when FICO 8 was first rolled out that all of the people that were just on their spouse's cards as AU's went out and all got credit cards en masse to prevent a stealth change for AU's coming back in and discounting all of them... stretches incredulity, just wish we had more folks with AU's testing.
Thank you for this btw, I assume it's now 2 AU tradelines that don't count for you in this point of the test cycle?
What was the target objective of this test? To see whether $4 would report? Whether $4 would report from an AU account? Or to see whether a long-dormant AU account would have any influence on an otherwise perfect (844) file?
I hope your conclusion is that a non-perfect AU account has little influence over a nearly perfect 844 score, because I see no change in OP score here, from the AU account at all. The only change I see is due to one of OP card coming out of zero balance, then going back to zero balance again, same same change.
