Agreement thins where it bites
A finding is only half the story; the other half is whether anyone agreed to act. Where a response is recorded, agreement is overwhelming — but it softens precisely as findings get worse. The pushback is qualification, not refusal. (Genres that don’t record an agency response — royal commissions, PC inquiries — are excluded, not read as anything.)
The acceptance mix, by severity
As severity rises, full agreement migrates into ‘agreed in principle / partially’, while outright rejection stays near zero.
Agreement (full or most) falls from ~88% on mild findings to ~80% on the most severe; outright disagreement stays at or below 2.0% throughout.
The families that resist most — Safeguarding & Harm Response, Resource Allocation & Reform, Disability & Care Capacity — are the high-stakes ones. The largest family draws near-reflexive agreement.
The rare refusals
A live sample of the most severe findings agencies met with recorded disagreement — the exceptions that define the rule.
- — severity-5.0 · Conflict Rules: Formal but uneven finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-5.0 · Audit Mandate: Integrity-guided oversight finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-5.0 · Remediation: Persistent control and data gaps finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-4.5 · Settlement Administration: Mostly fair, needs refinement finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-4.0 · Freight Subsidy: Distorted claims and incentives finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-4.0 · Public Integrity: Repeated cross-agency failures finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-4.0 · Influence Risks: Disclosure and training weak finding, response: disagreed.
- — severity-4.0 · Conflict Management: Identification remains inconsistent finding, response: disagreed.