diff --git a/src/pfs/cms_summaries.py b/src/pfs/cms_summaries.py
index 36f1e01..2b510ea 100644
--- a/src/pfs/cms_summaries.py
+++ b/src/pfs/cms_summaries.py
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ _ACTIONS = (
     (
         "finalize_modified",
         re.compile(
-            r"\bfinaliz\w+[^.]*(?:with (?:a )?modification|\brevis)"
+            r"(?<!not )\bfinaliz\w+[^.]{0,120}(?:with (?:a )?modification|\brevis)"
             r"|\bwe have assigned\b|\bwe are assigning\b",
             re.I,
         ),
diff --git a/tests/pfs/fixtures/fr_comment_pairs.json b/tests/pfs/fixtures/fr_comment_pairs.json
index de7f603..e585655 100644
--- a/tests/pfs/fixtures/fr_comment_pairs.json
+++ b/tests/pfs/fixtures/fr_comment_pairs.json
@@ -29,5 +29,7 @@
  "X-YBM4IZUS:429": "Response: We thank the commenters for their support and feedback.",
  "WHNGCYHB:3310": "Response: To streamline the process, we proposed to have a single process with a single audit step, regardless of the reason an ACO is selected for the audit. The proposals were intended to streamline the audit process, provide audit feedback to ACOs and validate the accuracy of quality data in a timely manner that, in turn, permits timely feedback and allows accurate information to be used in the reconciliation of the ACO's performance for the prior year. Incorporating an appeals process would severely delay ACO reconciliation, and therefore, we do not agree that such a process should be included. Additionally, we believe that establishing an appeals process would be inconsistent with the statutory preclusion on administrative and judicial review of the assessment of the quality of care furnished by the ACO under section 1899(g) of the Act. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to comments noting that simple mistakes can be made when reporting quality that, if given the opportunity to be rectified, would not reflect poorly on the actual quality of the care delivered by the ACO. We note, however, that the CMS web interface provides a number of reports that ACOs can access and use to check their data entry in the CMS Web Interface to assist ACOs in monitoring the accuracy of the quality data they submit. These reports can help ACOs to identify and correct errors in their data submission during the timeframe the CMS Web Interface is open for quality data submission. Even so, we believe there may be instances following an audit when CMS may need to employ some discretion related to the adjustment of an ACO's overall quality score. For example, an ACO may have experienced an error when reporting measures electronically (for example, an error in mapping the extensible markup language (XML) specifications) that affects all beneficiaries reported on for a quality measure. In this instance, a mapping error could be out of the control of the ACO that, based on an audit, demonstrated that it had otherwise fulfilled our quality reporting requirements. In the absence of flexibility not to apply an adjustment to the ACO's overall quality score, such an ACO may be unfairly penalized. Therefore, we are modifying our proposed policy. Specifically, we are finalizing a policy under which CMS will adjust an ACO's overall performance score to reflect audit findings when the ACO has an audit mismatch rate of greater than 10 percent. However, we will retain discretion not to apply this adjustment to the ACO's score in certain unusual circumstances where it would be inappropriate to apply the adjustment. We note that we do not intend to employ this discretion to avoid adjusting an ACO's overall performance score in instances when the ACO cannot produce adequate validation of the data submitted or did not interpret the measure specifications correctly. For example, if we determine that the ACO has not produced medical record information sufficient to validate the data the ACO submitted to the web interface, we would not exercise our discretion not to apply the adjustment to the ACO's overall performance score based on results of the audit. We believe it is reasonable to: (1) Hold ACOs accountable for the accuracy of the data submitted according to information they validate from medical record reviews; and (2) require ACOs to produce proof of such accuracy in the event of an audit. Also, if we determine that the ACO did not interpret the measure specifications correctly, we would apply the adjustment to the ACO's overall performance based on audit results because ACOs are provided numerous opportunities to receive assistance from CMS before and during the quality measure submission process. For example, ACOs may access measure specification documents that are available on our Web site, contact the dedicated help desk, and attend webinars that we hold to educate ACOs about measure specifications and reporting requirements. Therefore, we believe that this modification of our proposal addresses stakeholder ( printed page 80492) concerns while permitting us to perform timely quality validation audits that hold ACOs accountable not only for the quality of the care they provide but also for the accuracy of their quality reporting.",
  "K292HMSA:3866": "Response: We appreciate the commenters' support and are finalizing our proposal to allow EPs to continue to report CQM results as calculated by Certified EHR Technology by attestation for the 2012 payment year.",
- "9V89NVZG:1624": "Response: We are finalizing this policy change to remove the requirement that the medical record must document the medical necessity of furnishing the visit in the home rather than in the office, as proposed, effective January 1, 2019."
+ "9V89NVZG:1624": "Response: We are finalizing this policy change to remove the requirement that the medical record must document the medical necessity of furnishing the visit in the home rather than in the office, as proposed, effective January 1, 2019.",
+ "DE2VH9PD:864": "Response: We recognize the commenters' concerns with the use of G-codes. We agree that it is preferable to use CPT codes whenever possible. Under our finalized process, the use of G-codes for the purpose of holding over current coding and payment policies should not be necessary, generally, as long as we receive RUC recommendations for all new, revised and potentially misvalued codes before February 10th of the prior year. However, we need to preserve our ability to establish a proxy for current coding and values in situations where we receive the RUC recommendations too late or, for some other reason, encounter serious difficulty developing proposed values for revised code sets. In the proposed rule, we sought input as to ways to achieve this without using G-codes. The only suggestion offered by commenters was to value such codes on an interim final basis. As we discuss above, we believe the program and its stakeholders are better served by delaying revaluations for one year while we used the notice and comment process to obtain public comments in advance. The comments on this proposal were overall overwhelming supportive of this point of view. Accordingly, we are not foreclosing the possibility of using G-codes for this purpose when warranted by the circumstances. However, we are cognizant of the difficulties created by the use of G-codes and will seek to minimize their use. We also note that the RUC and stakeholders can assist us in minimizing the use of G-codes by taking steps to insure that we receive RUC recommendations as early as possible.",
+ "WHNGCYHB:3377": "Response: We recognize that reporting use of CEHRT under the QPP's Advancing Care Information performance category according to MIPS requirements will be new for many ECs and that it will take some time for ACOs and their ECs to gain some familiarity with the new reporting requirements for ACO-11. For this reason, we proposed and are finalizing a policy to treat ACO-11 as a newly introduced measure and to hold the ACO accountable for pay for reporting only for the first 2 years after the revised measure is introduced. However, to stress the importance of care coordination and support the use of CEHRT, we intend to phase in the measure to pay for performance according to the schedule outlined in Table 36 of the proposed rule (81 FR 46421-46422) and as indicated in Table 42 of this final rule. Consistent with our established policies for setting quality performance benchmarks for new measures, a new benchmark for this measure will be set based on the data gathered during the two pay for reporting years after the measure is introduced."
 }
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/pfs/test_cms_summaries.py b/tests/pfs/test_cms_summaries.py
index 5b4e67b..1fe0b68 100644
--- a/tests/pfs/test_cms_summaries.py
+++ b/tests/pfs/test_cms_summaries.py
@@ -142,6 +142,12 @@ def test_finalizing_beyond_a_comma_clause_is_as_proposed():
     assert response_action_of(TEXT[1624]) == "finalize_as_proposed"
 
 
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("p", [864, 3377])
+def test_revis_far_from_finalizing_is_not_finalize_modified(p):
+    # R47a, live DE2VH9PD ¶864 ("revised codes") and WHNGCYHB ¶3377 ("the revision")
+    assert response_action_of(TEXT[p]) != "finalize_modified"
+
+
 def test_thanks_with_an_action_verb_is_not_acknowledged():
     # R48, live K292HMSA ¶3866: "We appreciate the commenters' support and are finalizing ..."
     assert response_action_of(TEXT[3866]) == "unclear"