Revocation rules are intentionally very strict, in order to prevent CAs from weaseling out of them. If you leave open any possibility of a CA delaying or refusi

Revocation rules are intentionally very strict, in order to prevent CAs from weaseling out of them. If you leave open any possibility of a CA delaying or refusing revocation because of some form of "it's an administrative issue, it isn't that serious anyways", every incident will inevitably result in a weeks-long discussion about the real impact of the incident and whether this one is "serious enough" to require immediate action. In the past CAs have been more than happy to lie and downplay incidents, because they know their customers don't like revocations and are going to consider switching to a competitor. Maybe not a big deal in practice for a technicality, but it does mean that CAs can not be trusted to always be truthful - and that in turn extends to serious incidents. This is obviously really bad for the web PKI as a whole, so the rule is that any violation of the rules, no matter how small or nitpicky, must be treated as if it were a serious security incident. Don't agree with the rules or think the rule is interpreted the wrong way? File a report afterwards to review the rules. The entire business of a CA is to be a trusted third party. If you can't be trusted to always follow the rules exactly to the letter, you shouldn't be a CA. Behaving predictably is more important than being right about some technical minutiae regarding the security impact of some incident.