Thanks. It still just blows my mind that even governmental records weren't considered good enough in terms of proof. I realise it was a federal policy and I worked for the state government, but if even governmental records weren't considered good enough what chance did most people have of being able to gather sufficient proof. I realise it's just more bad faith on top of bad faith, but it was absolutely set up so that people had no chance.

> only able to dispute it with incredibly detailed records from when they were a student

I'll go you one better. I worked short contracts for a state government during part of the period they looked at. I wasn't working consistently, and only claimed what I was entitled to when not working, but of course the averaging process triggered for me because my annual income was over the threshold. But it had been so long between then and when I got my robodebt notice that the government's pay system had changed, and they literally would not accept the only records the state government was able to provide from their old system.

I ended up in a standoff with them and their debt collectors for years, with them knowing perfectly well I hadn't claimed anything I wasn't entitled to, but the system not accepting the evidence. They'd put it on hold, and then it would come off hold after a couple of months and trigger another wave of debt collectors and I'd have to start arguing it all over again. I spent hundreds of hours defending myself, and it only went away after the court cases.