A STOP answering a scope question must not be answered with another

The requirementstatement

A STOP sent in reply to a scope-clarification message must not trigger a second clarification message.

Severityseverity: HighHIGHRejected by at least one carrier or provider, and a common cause of failure at the rest.
When it bitesphase: After you are livepostFalls due once you are sending: STOP handling, quiet hours, suppression, record retention.
What is checkedobject: scope-clarification loop guard
Where it liveslayer: OperationalOPERATIONAL
How Ekas settles itdetectability: Post-submissionUNDETECTABLE_PRE_SUBMISSION; The subject does not exist yet at submission time: a reply window, an expiring PIN, a queue position. Reported with its deadline.
What the fix involvesfailureClass: Wait on someone elseTERMINAL_EXTERNAL; Needs an external system or a waiting period, such as IRS propagation, a vetting result, or a carrier queue.
Who requires itauthorities: FCC
When it appliesapplicabilityText: Applies to every 10DLC registration.

Why this rule existsrationale

The loop is the failure: a consumer replies STOP, gets asked which messages, replies STOP again, and gets asked again — each round a message to somebody who has now revoked twice. It happens because the clarification is wired to the keyword rather than to the state, and it is the version of this family that most reliably produces a screenshot in a complaint.

How to fix itremediation

Track whether a clarification has already been sent to this number and never send a second one; a repeat STOP gets the plain confirmation. Done when replying STOP twice produces one clarification and one confirmation, in that order, and nothing else.

A compliant exampleexample

STOP → clarification. STOP again → "You have been unsubscribed and will receive no further messages."

Check this yourselfattestation

No tool can settle this one for you. Here is the check, and what wrong looks like.

Does replying STOP twice produce one clarification and one confirmation, in that order, and nothing else?

1Test the double-STOP path specifically. The single-STOP path looks correct in every demonstration.
2Confirm the clarification is wired to the consumer's state rather than to the keyword, so a second one can never be sent.

What wrong looks like: STOP, asked which messages, STOP again, asked again. Each round is a message to somebody who has now revoked twice, and it is the version of this family that most reliably produces a screenshot in a complaint.

Notesnotes

A state machine inside the handler. What the user has to test is the double-STOP path specifically, because the single-STOP path looks correct in every demonstration.

Rules you will hit next

Other operational rules at the same severity. A registration is judged as a whole, not rule by rule.

OPS-034A programme in another language still owes the English keywordHighHIGH OPS-035The mandatory keywords must work over MMS tooHighHIGH OPS-044Suppression is brand-wide, not per numberHighHIGH OPS-047A state may give you less time than the federal limitHighHIGH OPS-052Silence after a scope question revokes everythingHighHIGH OPS-054Revoking against an exempt message stops everything else tooHighHIGH

All operational rules

OPS-053 is one of 139 operational rules in the 915-rule 10DLC registry. Free to cite under CC BY 4.0.