Prior to the issuance of resolutions 23157 of 2018 and 81391 of 2017 proffered by the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (hereinafter SIC or the Superintendency), the criterion used by the sanctioning body in matters of consciously parallel conduct, the SIC to determine the existence of the behaviors consciously focused on the verification that several market agents during the same period of time maintained equal or highly similar prices and with different cost structures. Hence, verified the above, it proceeded with the imposition of a penalty under the argument of the impossibility that exists for the events described to come from chance or some accident. With the arrival of these resolutions, for the first time major economic and legal criteria tending to prove with true certainty the consciously parallel behaviors are addressed for the first time. Thus, the indicator test proposed by the Judge and Professor Richard Posner Harrington indicators, the analysis of strategic barriers, among others is introduced. With regard to the test of the conscious element as a sine qua non requirement for the configuration of behavior, these resolutions brought with them the plus factors as circumstantial evidence that allows to deduce that the parallelism is not the result of anything different than the agents involved have agreed to behave harmoniously and collaboratively, avoiding competition. However, despite the attempt to consolidate a new legal criterion that supports the sanctions in terms of tacit collusion, these are insufficient in their application scope since, in practice, there is no clear legal criterion under which the factors are examined. plus In this order of ideas, this paper examines the reasons why the new elements mentioned were not applied correctly, and, on the other hand, suggests a probative scheme based on the evidence to assess what has been called as a plus factor, avoiding that these are valued with a universal criterion and that, on the contrary, there is a legal rule that regulates the value that has to be granted to each factor. Based on the above, in the first place reference will be made to the normative consecration of consciously parallel practices in Colombia, its elements and the markets in which they occur. Next, we will bring to mind the management that has been given to this figure by foreign jurisdictions and, likewise, in our country by the State Council and the SIC. Finally, we will proceed to carry out an analysis regarding the legal criteria used in the Colombian jurisdiction so that, based on this, it is possible to suggest a scheme that proposes new evidentiary guidelines under which this type of practices must be addressed. Likewise, how the non-application of the same can be translated into an impediment and irreversible damage to the advance of the market that every time tends more for the use of new technologies.