I don't know how there can be understanding if there is nothing to understand — Patterner

Understanding, is of meaning, and meaning does not consist of things. This is how we can avoid the infinite regress. If a thing, in this case an object of knowledge, consists of parts in specific relations to each other, and each part is itself a thing, then an infinite regress is implied. But if we allow that understanding is prior to knowing, then the object of knowledge, the fact, can consist solely of meaning without any things, and the infinite regress is avoided.

Entirely likely. But it is, as you just said, s fact that is learned, And if it 'will be integral to an understanding at a later time,' then it is not when learned. It is just a fact. — Patterner

But "the fact" which is learned, is produced, created, by understanding. The fact is a judgement, let's say a judgement that X is true (this penny was minted in 2003). The judgement depends on, is supported by, or is created by, a specialized understanding which is specific to the knowing of that particular "fact'. The understanding may consist of other objects of knowledge, "facts", in relation to each other, but as described above, this is not necessary. And any time that there is a new fact in your mind, this new fact is supported by a new understanding.