[abfunders]

If no one was on my side there wouldn’t be an entire list of regulation clauses and rules in our favor, nor would we have an inbox full of new funders to work with.

The disconnect here is defining a default. Because you agree that the broker should not be paid on a default, right? So let's do it together.

Here's the industry standard:
The merchant agrees to remit X% of their daily gross revenue. That is estimated to be approximately $Y per day.
If they don't do that, then they are reneging on their contractual sale of the gross revenue.
Clawback and "not paying commissions" are actually the same thing. Either pay and take back, or don't pay. Most funders will pay you (the ISO) if the merchant does finish out without true collections.

Here's your definition:
If the company didn't sell/send it off to a third-party collections agency, it's still in 100% good standing.

If the merchant bounced a payment and immediately called the funder and said "here's the missed payment", that might change things. Did they do that? Did you encourage the merchant to do that?

If you don't have a contractual definition of "default", then you have to look at the industry standard. And as you have seen from the comments here, the "industry standard" is not what you thought.

It would have been better to start the thread "here's what happened, is this considered a default and how can I convince the funder to pay the commissions before the end of the term?"