Your assumption is erroneous.
As for your opinion, well, probably good that you admit it's opinion, thus FWIW (regarding which I will withhold my opinion of its worth, consistent with my effort to focus on information more than opinion).
I do not need repeated advice about what information to share. I do wonder, however, why you repeat the vitriolic characterizations (if the object is to insult, I got that twenty or thirty slurs ago) . . . and "tendentious," really? Hard, very hard, to grasp how observations about the difference between what underlies decisions to increase the level of inquiry/investigation, versus what guides outcome decision-making, involves partisan bias or is a controversial position.
If you are not interested in better understanding the important difference between routine administrative processing (which most of the forum is about and which I do not address much anymore) versus adjudicative administrative proceedings (which has been my focus here for a number of years, largely limited to issues involving PRs at risk for negative dispositions), that's your choice, not mine. I was, after all, explicitly posting for "those who offer informational help here . . ."
By the way, unlike my previous post (which was to address the misinformation referenced in quotes, again for "those who offer informational help here"), this part is for you:
As an analogy, describing the level of scrutiny and standard of proof as analogous badly misses the point, confuses what invites investigatory processing (elevated scrutiny) versus decision-making guidelines, especially in regards to RO compliance.
