"With all respect.. that's incorrect." With all due respect, why would you say "that's incorrect" and then go on to repeat exactly what I said as if it were a correction? The data is FINRA's, just as I said. OTC Markets fetches it from them and displays it according to its own fancies, just as I said (and OTC Markets could conceivably corrupt the data or make mistakes in presenting it).
"FINRA confirmed that when short interest is 'zero', they still post '0' for that month as seen in my screen shot." As a matter of fact, that is not true and never has been (and I've been watching short data for years). What kind of question you could have asked to solicit that response I don't know, but obviously, you worked it out to get the response you wanted.
In fact -- and easily verified by looking at dozens (probably hundreds or thousands) of stocks -- "zero" short interest is only reported for the date for which it becomes zero. Naturally, OTC Markets or anyone else can fiddle with the data feed and give it whatever appearance is desired, but null data is provided by FINRA once the short interest has reached zero for the entire time it stays there.
"They do not just stop posting." Actually, they do, and always have, no matter what you coax anyone into saying. As I said, that's easily verifiable for anyone who doesn't just want to argue about it. Take a look at RRRI's stop-and-go short data for just one more example. If you like, go ahead and use OTC Markets to pull up the data you want to examine, but please don't use their presentation to claim that someone else provided the wrong data, or hid the data. That is just flat misleading (and ludicrous). And you would have to produce two reports of zero data in a row from otcbb to convince anyone that could happen. I have never seen it, and believe me, there was nothing special about FFGO and nothing that any regulator had to hide.