A condition in which responsibility for progression, clarification, or resolution is shifted away from the institution and onto the person seeking remedy. The institution remains nominally engaged while substantive movement depends entirely on continued effort from the complainant.

• Repeated requests for restatement of previously submitted information
• Unresolved procedural loops requiring re-entry at earlier stages
• Responsibility for follow-up displaced onto the complainant
• Absence of substantive institutional movement between contacts
• Requests for documentation already held by the institution

A condition in which the severity or urgency of a case has increased over time, but institutional engagement has not adjusted to reflect that change. Earlier delay has developed into active escalation without a corresponding substantive response from the institution.

• Case severity or urgency has increased since initial submission
• Institutional response pattern unchanged despite escalating conditions
• No acknowledgement of changed circumstances by the institution
• Escalation documented but not addressed in correspondence
• Timeline extended beyond reasonable expectation without explanation

A condition in which the institution has failed to progress a case within a timeframe that can be considered reasonable given the nature of the submission. Delay is recorded as a structural observation, not an attribution of intent.

• Response or progression has not occurred within expected timeframes
• No substantive update provided during the delay period
• Deadlines, statutory or otherwise, have passed without action
• Acknowledgement received but no progression recorded
• Pattern of delay consistent across multiple contact points

A condition in which procedural mechanisms are invoked by the institution in a manner that redirects engagement without addressing substantive issues. Process is used as a substitute for response rather than a pathway to resolution.

• Case redirected to alternative process without substantive engagement
• Procedural requirements cited that were not previously communicated
• Form, format, or channel requirements used to delay substantive response
• Multiple procedural stages invoked sequentially without resolution
• Referral to another body without facilitation or continuity

A condition in which the person seeking remedy has made multiple contacts across an extended period without achieving substantive progress. Each contact restarts engagement without building on previous exchanges.

• Three or more contacts recorded without substantive progression
• Each contact treated as a new submission rather than continuation
• No accumulated institutional understanding across contact history
• Repeated acknowledgement without action
• Contact history not referenced or incorporated in responses