Cherry picking two specific things I want to reply about. > No matter what parts of this problem you want to look at, this "500 pages per month" BS still just

Cherry picking two specific things I want to reply about. > No matter what parts of this problem you want to look at, this "500 pages per month" BS still just does not add up, even if you pretend you're stupid and just accept the stated difficulties as actually being the problem. This is a processing quota per applicant. I agree it's a problem that the system isn't designed to require initial submitters to produce public-release-ready reports as well; though we would presumably need at least an N% (E.G. 20-25%) budget increase for the government across the board. > It sounds like what should happen is, the data should be supplied with the identifiers separated by the original submitter. Like a standard that everyone follows where when you write the reports in the first place, everyone is subject A who works at employer X and lives in county Z, and the legend is in a separate part of the document which is trivial to withhold. > Put both the job of segregating the data and the liability for doing it correctly on the submitter when they are creating the data in the first place. Yes, this is also a logical solution, the inputs to the (government body) processes should have public-release-ready versions as well. For both cases, please see my parent comment about the necessity of destructive fuzzing to sufficiently frost (ed window) the sensitive data.