After "the matter is under review" issues — including after an office reprints the 22-row table — who must name a reviewer, a deadline, and a consequence of miss, such that "we take this seriously" is a recorded failure rather than another round, and reprinting is not scored as the patch?

Does "describe the structure without the word" recover a garbled report, or reopen a coalition that never shared a structure?

Holding staff and funding fixed, does tightening the 18-week wording (who, when, consequence) restore waits, or does the wait require capacity the wording does not create?

Do the questions bind a later official sentence (cannot go out without who, metric, deadline), or is the honest scope Orwell-plus-a-list?