I may be mis-interpreting things, but it seems like there's a slight conflict here. Or, more accurately, the FAQ can be interpreted in such a way that it conflicts with itself with regard to Chum. Here's my dilemma:

The section on Bypassing ICE has the following:

Example : The Runner encounters a piece of ice that she can bypass with . The last piece of ice the Runner
encountered was , whose subroutine the Runner did not break. The Runner pays to bypass the current piece of ice with Femme Fatale, and takes 3 net damage from Chum’s ability, since subroutines on bypassed ice are not broken.

- Pg. 2 of the v1.2 FAQ

Later on, with Chum, the following is noted:

Chum deals its net damage the first time either of the following occur during an encounter with the next
piece of ice:
1) a subroutine resolves
2) the run ends

- Pg. 5 of the v1.2 FAQ

The clarification on Chum makes it seem that there are only two cases that Chum's net damage will actually occur and they're both "during an encounter with the next piece of ice" (this would be more accurately worded "for the next piece of ice encountered," but that's beside my point). If a subroutine doesn't occur or the run doesn't end, then that clarification makes it seem like Chum will have no effect. In other words, if you were to bypass something with Femme Fatale. Bypassing with Femme means that 1) no subroutines resolve and 2) the run doesn't end during the encounter with that piece of ice which makes this seem very contradictory to the previous example.

Now, I get that this is likely just an oversight, but I want to get it officially cleared up before I have to argue with someone about which statement is more accurate. I'm sure that the example is correct, however the Chum notes seem to outline very specific conditions for the effect and bypassing the ice is oddly left out.

Good catch. Clearly an oversight on page 5. To be fair, page 5 doesn't say those two cases are the only cases, but bypassing as a cause for Chum damage is an unfortunate omission and should probably be included in future versions of the FAQ.

If you want it to get officially cleared up, though, you need to use "Rules Questions" link on the very bottom of the website.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I would have totally missed that link otherwise.

Hopefully the next FAQ will be more clear about what will and won't trigger Chum's damage.

More stress on Chum and its clarification on page 5 of FAQ v1.2.

Chum says:

_{The next piece of ice the Runner encounters during this run has +2 strength. Do 3 net damage unless the Runner breaks all subroutines on that piece of ice.}

_{its clarification says:}

_{If the Runner jacks out immediately after encountering a Chum and not breaking its subroutine, the Runner does not take any}

_damage.

_{And what about the case when there are NO pieces of ice after Chum? And if there is, but it stays unrezzed (no encounter possible)? You cannot break subs, so you take damage? Too weird (i don't use it in that way), but it could be strictly read like that. At the end of the sub phrase , I should add ", if encountered".}

_{I'd like to see a better worded clarification on this card.}

It's fine and i like it, but it seems an errata more than a clarification to me. If the runner jacks out, he didn't break any of next ice's subroutines, so he should take the damage.

And what about the case when there are NO pieces of ice after Chum? And if there is, but it stays unrezzed (no encounter possible)? You cannot break subs, so you take damage? Too weird (i don't use it in that way), but it could be strictly read like that. At the end of the sub phrase , I should add ", if encountered".

No further clarification needed. Chum reads "The next piece of ice the runner encounters ..." The damage only occurs if the runner encounters the next piece of ice and doesn't break its subroutines. In neither of your examples does the runner encounter the next piece of ice after Chum.