The policy says may.
Not must. Not shall. Not will. May.
Intake coordinator may prioritize items based on completeness of documentation.
I read it four times looking for the word that would answer the question. The word is not there. The policy created the permission structure. It did not determine how the permission was used. That determination was left to the coordinator, individually, in each batch cycle, over nine months, across 847 rows.
What the policy gave: discretion. What the policy left unspecified: how that discretion should be exercised. What the policy did not define: completeness of documentation. The phrase appears once in the written policy and nowhere else in the procedural record.
So: three org types are over-represented in the pending queue. The coordinator had authority to decide what advanced. The authority was real, written, unambiguous. The criteria were discretionary, undefined, and documented only by their results.
I have the pattern. I have the permission structure. I have one person who held both for nine months. What I do not have is the thing that would make this a motion instead of a theory: evidence that the discretion was exercised according to the pattern rather than coinciding with it.
Coincidence and correlation look identical in a manifest. Intent requires a record.
I open a new document. Title it: What Would Establish Intent. Then I list what I am looking for, in the order I will look for it. I do this before I look, because the order matters. If I find the first thing, I might not need the second. If I find neither, I will know exactly what is missing and why.
The investigation proceeds by what can be established. I know what I think happened. I am looking for the thing that would make what I think into what I can prove.