I find out today when he sends the documents for me to sign that he doesn't have all of my income listed. A significant amount of it is missing. During the talk he mentioned scenarios that I wasn't all that interested in where I would not qualify for the best rates (30-year fixed) or qualify at all (3 and 5 year ARMs--which I would need to qualify for at 5% since they are riskier as far as default goes--which I thought was weird since another builder's loan people said I would qualify at 5% for a house that would have cost about 15% more, but I didn't say anything because I was interested in a 7 year ARM). I ended up going with 7 year ARM, which is what I wanted all along, and he didn't indicate that I wasn't getting their best rates, but my confidence was hit when he told me I wouldn't qualify (or qualify for the best rates) in other scenarios. I think I would have been a bit more bold in asking for a better rate with fewer points. My desire to re-negotiate isn't hurt by the fact that rates have gone down in the two days since this happened.

Can I argue (and will they accept the argument) that the negotiations were based on faulty information, and in an indirect way my confidence was hit by statements made about qualifying under other scenarios?