I'm throwing this out there just to learn if others have been in this situation and/or how they did or would answer.
There have been instances in which I have followed the shop guidelines correctly, but then have had the editors question me.
For example, on a gas station shop where the guidelines clearly state to evaluate all pumps excluding stand alone non (blue brand) pumps not under the main canopy. Yet, in the report section, there is selection that this is a non (blue brand) diesel, kerosene, etc branded pump. What to do?
I evaluate the pumps under the main canopy. Later, the shop is put on "hold". I am questioned why I evaluated a non (blue) brand diesel etc pump. Because it is under the main canopy. No, they say, you shouldn't evaluate those pumps.
Armed with that info, I perform another shop, excluding the non (blue) brand diesel pumps that are under the main canopy and select the answer on the report as non (blue) brand diesel, etc pumps. The shop is put on "hold". "We know that pumps 13 through 16 are under the main canopy. Why didn't you report them?" asked the editor (different one from the last). "Please evaluate, send photos and add comments as necessary."
Luckily for me, I take photos of all pumps as a matter of habit.

This is just one example of the ambiguity of the editors. There are others:
Why wasn't the restroom evaluated? Because as I did select, there are no public restrooms.
Why isn't the MID lit? Because I selected and performed a daytime shop.
Where is the photo of the attendant? Because they did not want their photo taken as reported. That's why there is a counter photo.

Sorry for the long missive. I guess I feel better now.

Bottomline though is, do the editors leave some wiggle room for me to answer incorrectly or at least encourage an incorrect answer in order to mark off points? I don't know, but sometimes it sure seems that way.

It is often the case that the editor, or some editors have not been told that the guidelines have changed. Or they never got the guidelines. Or they got them but did not read them. That is the time to go to your scheduler and ask that this get sorted out so that the editor is forced to acknowledge the contents of the guideline.

I would start by assuming that the editor does not understand the guidelines (for whatever reason) and work on having the MSC correct that. Only then would I begin to wonder about editors wanting/needing to rack up the"error" count.

Sometimes the editor is being thorough. Sometimes (not overwhelmingly, but shockingly more often than in other industries,) the editor is a complete lepton.

I had a Coyle editor send me two encyclopedia volumes worth of questions about things I had actually clearly stated in the report, for the most part. I responded with the answers, and included reference marks to the original reports. I got a second round of questions from another editor, smaller and more on the mark of things I actually needed to clarify, and asked them about what had happened. They told me that editor was new and most likely just playing things safe.

I've also had an instance where the editor missed broad, obvious things, rejected a report, and then lied like mad when I called them on it to cover their own tracks. Like I have emails with wildly contradicting information in them, and almost took that MSC to small claims before deciding it wasn't worth it.

So it could be any number of reasons.

@walesmaven wrote:

I would start by assuming that the editor does not understand the guidelines (for whatever reason) and work on having the MSC correct that. Only then would I begin to wonder about editors wanting/needing to rack up the"error" count.

I am a great believer in the sincerity of people and their frailties. So, yes, it is undoubtedly more than certain that the editor did not understand the guidelines or simply misunderstood them.

But, with that being said, I am often troubled to find shops on hold and, as I review the shop's report, have found my report changed to show a negative comment as if the editor was actually there, at the shop, accompanying me, rather than looking at photos and making a presumption.

For me, I always leave some kind of comment if I believe there could be ambiguity.

I have also found some reports to have been changed. In one such incident, I was questioned extensively by editor, their manager, then the project manager, because the first editor deleted most of my narratives! I called to the attention of the manager and project manager that I explicitly stated, "xyz," in my original report. They pulled the original file I submitted, explained, but did not apologize. I don't do shops for them anymore.

The monstrously-mega-huge MSC that almost everyone starts out with, also used to manipulate info, then blame me, warn me, and deny shops. I don't do shops for them anymore, either.

Without actually knowing the shop formatting you're using for your reports, it may be an msc that's looking for an explanation of all "no" answers. Most of the time, when I reply in the negative on a button answer, I then tie an explanation into the narrative to anticipate the inevitable request for more information. If pumps 13-16 are under the canopy but one is a diesel and not to be evaluated per shop directions, spell that out somewhere. Typically, that would be added in the narrative section if you've got one. The editors need a higher than normal level of specificity. Hope that helps!

When an editor from that company asks for something contrary to the guidelines, I submit the information if I have it, but I also politely explain why I did not submit it the first time. It is more work for me, but it has never failed to resolve the issue.

Maritz CX, huh?

@winemaker wrote:

Maritz CX, huh?

(Blushing)

Yes, though they are always and always shall be my favorite MSC.

Yep. I had a blue bank put on hold yesterday. Although I checked the box stating I had not received a rate sheet and the box stating that I hadn't received any pages of the rate sheet, the editor wrote asking me to look in the pocket of the folder for the rate sheet. And, if it wasn't there to document my findings. OMG. Like mystery2me, I respond to their question, but let them know politely that their question was redundant and unnecessary. Who knows how they grade in the background? If it was Intelli-shop I'd lose points for "having to be contacted." What really peeved me though, I have another shop that I placed on hold since last Friday because I ran into an issue. I left a voicemail Friday afternoon and sent an email that evening. Has anyone called me regarding THAT shop? No.