@Curious_George2 wrote:If you can give me a few of the best (i.e. clear and official) statements of the rule that order is supposed to be meaningful, I can write back to the customer support person to initiate a complaint that they are failing to follow their own rules.
@Curious_George2: These 2 graphics from FICO should be more than sufficient. Send them the permalink to this post.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:If you can give me a few of the best (i.e. clear and official) statements of the rule that order is supposed to be meaningful, I can write back to the customer support person to initiate a complaint that they are failing to follow their own rules.
@Curious_George2: These 2 graphics from FICO should be more than sufficient. Send them the permalink to this post.
I cannot understand the second graphic, especially the reference to the scores in the boxes and the asterisk in that sentence below the chart.
Are these possible.points gained or lost?
@KatSoDak wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:If you can give me a few of the best (i.e. clear and official) statements of the rule that order is supposed to be meaningful, I can write back to the customer support person to initiate a complaint that they are failing to follow their own rules.
@Curious_George2: These 2 graphics from FICO should be more than sufficient. Send them the permalink to this post.
I cannot understand the second graphic, especially the reference to the scores in the boxes and the asterisk in that sentence below the chart.
Are these possible.points gained or lost?
@KatSoDak: The asterisk is next to the maximum points possible for that characteristic - 75 points for Number of months in file.
12 to 23 months is worth 35 points, while 48 months or more gives the maximum possible (75).
75 - 35 = 40. So this factor is impacting the score more than the others and should be shown first (#1, or top) in the order of reason statements. "Short account history" in this example.
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:Do you have an aged Experian CMS subscription that can serve as a secondary source for old factor orders?
It's really unfortunate that the accurate depiction MF provides in the Scores tab is the ephemeral one, and the persistent one in Reports is corrupted.
I haven't seen any evidence that the EQ factors are out of order here, so one-third of your data is still OK.
To @Revelate and @Anonymous and any other skeptics, I would say: you don't have to take my word for any of this, and it's not a question of whether one accepts the statements of the customer support person. You can check this yourself. Look at the order of EX factors on any MF 3B Report you have available. Are they listed in the same order on the Compare view and the Experian-only view? I bet they are, 100% of the time. Then, if possible, compare that factor order against Experian's CMS for the same date. If they're the same on the F8 score, check the other scores. I expect you won't have to check many to find a discrepancy, though perhaps cleaner profiles with fewer overall factors invoked will mask the problem to some degree.
@Curious_George2 I did not realize any part of the report was ephemeral. I'm disappointed to learn that, are there any other parts of the report that are ephemeral?
I'm certainly not the most experienced MF Premium subscriber out there, but my impression from clicking around is that Scores only shows the one most recent score available. I don't see a way to change the date there.
The only similar thing I can think of is when there's an Alert that also announces a changed F8 score, the Scores tab on mobile (not desktop) will show all of the top-four negative factors for that bureau's F8 score, but only until the next Alert for that bureau. If you're attentive, you can screenshot them before they vanish.
Actually, if you go to "alerts", any of them that show a score change, specifically, will list the 4 negative reason codes for F8 for that bureau (any of the 3). Unfortunately, that is only for F8s and only when they give the specific "score change" and it is not tied to a specific event. Other than the most recent pull(s), you cannot get the correct order for the negative reason codes for past pulls for TU and EX. Truly disheartening. I went through all my reports, and the app/website, just to be certain.
Also, I am only finding these specific score change alerts for TU and EQ woth the negative reason codes. I scoured both mine and my SO's alerts and none were for EX, even with loads of changes. Maybe someone else has different exoerience with this, but EX always seems to be the last and least frequent to give an "alert".
Looks like even though they don't give updated mortgage scores, they alert to interest rate changes, too bad they don't just give the updated mortgage score too...
@Curious_George2: "Preserving Order in a Multiset Union with Shared Descriptions"
Tell them I'll even change the code for free and only violate like 40 to 60% of the NDA.
From my monthly 3B dated 3-11-2021. TransUnion Score 4 factors.
@Anonymous wrote:@Curious_George2: "Preserving Order in a Multiset Union with Shared Descriptions"
Tell them I'll even change the code for free and only violate like 40 to 60% of the NDA.
From my monthly 3B dated 3-11-2021. TransUnion Score 4 factors.
A tempting offer for them, I'm sure.
Kidding aside, I'm glad you posted this. I assume the numbers you've added depict the correct order of those factors, obtained from the more reliable Scores tab. If so, this provides a rebuttal to an argument someone might make in defense of the current system: In cases where the top four (or three, etc.) factors are the same between bureaus, we know currently Reports will show them in the same order, and can't we also just assume that is the correct order? As your 1-3-2 example in EX shows, the answer is no. Thank you!
@Curious_George2 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:@Curious_George2: "Preserving Order in a Multiset Union with Shared Descriptions"
Tell them I'll even change the code for free and only violate like 40 to 60% of the NDA.
From my monthly 3B dated 3-11-2021. TransUnion Score 4 factors.
A tempting offer for them, I'm sure.
Kidding aside, I'm glad you posted this. I assume the numbers you've added depict the correct order of those factors, obtained from the more reliable Scores tab.
Yes, from the Scores section.
If so, this provides a rebuttal to an argument someone might make in defense of the current system: In cases where the top four (or three, etc.) factors are the same between bureaus, we know currently Reports will show them in the same order, and can't we also just assume that is the correct order? As your 1-3-2 example in EX shows, the answer is no. Thank you!
This is really a mess. Bottomline for everyone else: always use the Scores tab to see the correct reason statement order. Also write them down or snapshot them for later because they will disappear on the next 1B/3B or Score Change Alert update.
The EQ8 Score Change Alerts that I get from myFICO only show 2 reason statements. I saw my first one in September 2020, and I've had a Premier subscription since 12/31/2018. I had plenty of EQ8 score changes in my first year with credit cards, so I just assumed the EQ alerts were added sometime around August/September 2020.
The TU8 Score Change Alerts will always have 4 in what I assume is the correct order. My Scores/Reports tab only has 2 or 3 each, so not even that is reliable for TU8.
@Anonymous wrote:
@KatSoDak wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Curious_George2 wrote:If you can give me a few of the best (i.e. clear and official) statements of the rule that order is supposed to be meaningful, I can write back to the customer support person to initiate a complaint that they are failing to follow their own rules.
@Curious_George2: These 2 graphics from FICO should be more than sufficient. Send them the permalink to this post.
I cannot understand the second graphic, especially the reference to the scores in the boxes and the asterisk in that sentence below the chart.
Are these possible.points gained or lost?
@KatSoDak: The asterisk is next to the maximum points possible for that characteristic - 75 points for Number of months in file.
12 to 23 months is worth 35 points, while 48 months or more gives the maximum possible (75).
75 - 35 = 40. So this factor is impacting the score more than the others and should be shown first (#1, or top) in the order of reason statements. "Short account history" in this example.
@Anonymous you know what? Maybe that is where the buffer for the new account Scorecard reassignment after mature derives?
@Revelate based on the above graphic from 2014 it appears AWB includes all tradelines?