Normalization rules seem to be used but ipPhone telephone number not appearing in contact cards

Question

We keep our CUCM-style telephone numbers in the AD ipPhone attribute.  The format is 000-0000.
I have added a normalization rule to Company_Phone_Number_Normalization_Rules.txt to make these E.164-ish and to add a prefix (3) that we use to route calls from Lync to CUCM.
Testing both with abserver.exe and observing a trace,  the rule is being applied correctly.
args[1]: 824-2072
824-2072 -> tel:[phone]
    Matching Rule in Company_Phone_Number_Normalization_Rules.txt on line 19
        ^(8\d{6})$
Component: ABServer
Function: Contact.AddAttribute
(ABServer,Contact.AddAttribute:contact.cs(317))(0000000036D00C4F)Id: 13  Name: ipPhone  Value: tel:[phone]
However,  I still don't see this [phone] in the contact card.   I tried looking in the rtcab.dbo.AbAttributeValue table and I also don't see any ipPhone (ID 13) values there.
I looked in absconfig.exe and the "Include phone number value that is currently present in AD for the phone attributes" option is selected (first choice).
Should I instead be using "Use normalization rules and include normalized number"?

Answer 1

There are still a few folks where the numbers aren't being published as expected.  To review,  we have this normalization rule:
## Company_Phone_Number_Normalization_Rules.txt
## 824-2072 -> 3-8242072
(8\d{6})
3-$1
and these two users (LDIF format):
dn: CN=User with incorrect Lync contact data
telephoneNumber: [phone]
otherTelephone: [phone]
ipPhone: 810-5009
mobile: [phone]
dn: CN=User with correct Lync contact data
telephoneNumber: [phone]
otherTelephone: [phone]
ipPhone: 810-5034
mobile: [phone]
The "good" user ends up with this "other" attribute (as seen from a dbimpexp.exe dump:
<phone type="other">
<readOnly>true</readOnly><displayString>810-5034</displayString>
<uri>tel:[phone];phone-context=enterprise</uri>
</phone>
The "bad" user ends up with the E.164 number repeated.
<phone type="other">
<readOnly>true</readOnly>
<displayString>[phone]</displayString>
<uri>tel:[phone]</uri>
</phone>
Where else should I be looking to figure out this inconsistency?