This is a new interpretation of how an ARM product should be disclosed that we haven’t heard. I believe the confusion is in the poorly worded commentary that uses the term introductory period and introductory rate interchangeably and these terms aren’t clearly defined.
We received feedback late last year from a CMG member that uses LaserPro. He said his product was the same as you described and it was being disclosed as 5/1 in LaserPro, his auditors argued it should be a 0/1. He went to LaserPro and D+H Senior Compliance Counsel provided him with a written response that it should be disclosed as a 5/1.
There seems to be definite confusion over this portion of the commentary and how ARM products should be disclosed. We have reached out to the CFPB for clarification and will update this post once we have more information.