Step 4 · Diagnose · Diagnose · 90 days vs July 28 reset PT·EN
Higgsfield Refund Case · Visual Course

90 days vs July 28 reset

See the material conflict without assuming which rule the system actually applies.

Primary source
Higgsfield purchase flow — 90-day promise

What this source supports: The phrase was observed in the live flow; the reset-message screenshot should accompany the request.

The simple layer stands alone; open the technical layer for limits and objections.
1

The big idea

By the end, you can
  • Calculate the purchase-to-reset window
  • State both possible interpretations
  • Request preservation before the deadline

The purchase occurred on July 4. On July 23, the current flow stated that extra credits remain valid for 90 days. The account-holder's capture showed a July 28 reset—only 24 days after purchase—without saying whether it reached the top-up. The coexistence of those messages creates ambiguity; it does not prove a breach.

Think of it as… a ticket whose current screen advertises three months while another message shows a date in 24 days without identifying the ticket. You therefore request the rule applied to the purchase instead of guessing.

Under the hood

The conflict is conditional but strong: if reset reaches the purchased lot, validity is inconsistent; if it reaches monthly credits only, the interface is ambiguous. Either way, support should preserve the lot and explain the rule.

2

Visual map

July 4 buy +24 days July 28 reset 90 days
Read left to right: each stage limits what the next may claim.
SCENARIO A Monthly only SCENARIO B Top-up included
The case becomes stronger when the evidence boundary stays visible.
Day 0
Day 24
Day 90
Promise
Reset
No rollover
Monthly
Purchased
Preserve
Capture
Explain
Resolve
Scenario A

Monthly only

Scenario B

Top-up included

3

In practice

This record turns the reasoning into verifiable fields without personal identifiers.

Structured case record 
{
  "purchase_date": "2026-07-04",
  "reported_reset": "2026-07-28",
  "days_until_reset": 24,
  "advertised_validity_days": 90,
  "top_up_impact": "needs_confirmation"
}

How to verify

Compare the quotations in ../../dossie-reembolso-higgsfield.md, “Validity inconsistency.”

Worked example
1Attach both messages with visible dates.
2Show 24 days versus 90 days.
3Request lot preservation while the case is reviewed.
4

Try it

Commit before reveal

Does the date gap alone prove the top-up will be erased?

No. It proves a material ambiguity and supports an urgent preservation and clarification request.
Commit before revealWindow↻
Reveal answerFrom day 0 to reported reset: 24 days.
Commit before revealPromise↻
Reveal answerExtra credits valid for 90 days.
Commit before revealFork↻
Reveal answerMonthly-only reset or top-up reset too.
Active review

Answer both questions; the score updates automatically.

Which conclusion is proportionate?
The messages conflict; actual impact on the top-up still depends on the internal rule.
Which action reduces immediate risk?
Preservation protects the disputed object; cancellation may trigger another forfeiture rule.

Sources and traceability

Sources and traceability
RESOURCES.md
Higgsfield Terms of Use
§ 9.3 · § 9.4
Brazilian Consumer Code
Official source · context, not automatic conclusion
Use what you learned to review the request and seek professional guidance if legal or banking consequences matter. Now read what Sections 9.3 and 9.4 help establish—and what they do not.