MyFico "Insights" - time since most recent late - issue

[IodineNightSky]

So in looking at my "Insights" in MyFico, I noticed that "Time Since Most Recent Late Payment" for two of my reports shows as 2 years and 2 months. On the other report it shows as 4 years and 10 months. The reality is the 4 years and 10 months. 

I believe what the 2 years and 2 months ago is from when i was cleaning up some credit and had disputed and account that came back as verified. But that account had already been paid off well before then, I was just trying to get it off my report because it was a negative and had some funky reporting descrepancies so I took a shot, they verified, and then I just let it go. 

But there was absolutely no late payment 2 years 2 months ago - the last one was 4 years 10 months ago like the one correct report shows. 

So, my question is what can i do to get the other two reports showing 4 years and 10 months like they should? And, maybe before addressing that, i should consider whether it even matters. Does the "Insights" on MyFico actually mean anything? Are my scores lower because of this issue? My three scores are only 10 points from highest to lowest so i'm wondering it perhaps the MyFico "Insights" just mistakening reports it as a late payment when really it was something that was just a dispute verified. 

Any ideas? 

[dragontears]

If your scores are within 10 points of each other it sounds like a CMS (credit monitoring service) interpretation 

[Revelate]

Explicitly the Insights portion *is* an interpretation.

That's an interesting one, if it were me and my curiosity about wonky credit things, I'd pull a report for the affected bureau directly from the bureau itself and see what the tradeline data was.  I wouldn't expect anything strange but at least for some of them there is a "last time late" field in their data may not directly be in the myFICO interface, I don't have the monitoring service anymore (it's been a bit actually) but I don't think it was there last time I did.

[IodineNightSky]

thanks folks - i think it's likely just the incorrect interpretation of data as suggested, but as the other poster noted, i'm going to pull the paper reports and see what looks different, if anything, in the reporting.