Good report.
Such detail helps to orient the influence of some factors and illustrate how things like patterns or frequency of travel can affect things. Thus . . .
Some Observations (mostly in regards to influence of frequent travel):
Generally it is best to follow the instructions and that includes the checklist. That is, while some may include additional documentation not requested or listed in the checklist, most do not and that is for good reason:
when in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
While lawyers learn how to identify if and when to do otherwise, they generally make a concerted effort to know and follow the rules, including the instructions. So no surprise the lawyer didn't want "
to add any additional info apart from what they asked in application form."
Meanwhile, the timeline from AOR and date processing starts, to date of decision to issue a new PR card, typically ranges from the SAME day to a few days, generally within a week or so. Many take longer, sure, but for most so long as there is no reason to make further inquiry or conduct checks, it is an open, check, approve process.
The difference in your case is probably just as you indicate: you got AOR sooner due to the request for urgent processing, which when denied probably meant yours went into a queue for which the timeline was probably comparable to how long it was between the date other non-urgent applications actually arrived at CPC-Sydney (around the same time as yours arrived there) and were later opened (thus their AOR date).
Again, most applications are opened and approved and generate the issuance of a new PR card more or less attendant a single task event. And again, while there are many that take longer (which may be "most" in reference to applications discussed in this forum, but that is almost certainly because there is a much higher ratio of PRs with potential-problem let alone some-question scenarios populating forum discussions), so long as there is no reason to make further inquiry or conduct checks, it is just that simple open, check, and approve process.
Which brings me to the main reason I am commenting here, and that is in regards to frequent travel (in your case "
extensive work travel").
Regarding Frequent Travel In Particular:
(For those interested. I go into some depth here, at some length, to identify and explain fairly fine distinctions; I do this in part because the OP's scenario helps illustrate these distinctions and because I believe it helps to more fully understand how and why very similar facts or circumstances can have a rather different effect in particular cases.)
There seems to be a persistent myth that frequent travel tends to raise questions and concerns. And of course it can. But frequent travel can otherwise actually be a strong positive factor. In particular, since dates of entry into Canada are easily confirmed by IRCC in the CBSA travel history, each one of those dates is a date for which there is no doubt whatsoever about the PR's presence in Canada.
Moreover, and perhaps the more influential factor, frequent travel will readily reveal a pattern. This can go in diverging directions --
-- if the pattern reflects (or at least is consistent with) a life centered in Canada with frequent travel abroad, that bolsters the case
-- if the pattern indicates a life centered outside Canada, depending on other factors that can trigger increased scrutiny or overt concerns
One of the more important take-aways from this is the recognition that the influence certain factors have is NOT the same for all PRs. Frequent travel can be a big plus for some. Frequent travel can invite questions and issues for others. Thus, some PRs with frequent travel can have their PR card application processed routinely, no delays at all. But for other PRs, frequent travel can result in a referral for Secondary Review or other non-routine processing, resulting in months or even a year's longer timeline.
This maps into a factor I often emphasize even though I am not sure how much others concur: the appearance of being well-settled or at least established in Canada. And of course actually being established in Canada tends to help give the appearance of being well-settled or at least established in Canada. But for purposes of these comments, the take-away, again, is that if the pattern of travel (which can be discerned apart from frequent travel but tends to be more obvious when there is frequent travel) suggests a life centered in Canada, there is a positive influence. And otherwise if the pattern does not reflect a life centered in Canada, it may have little influence (either way) but can potentially be significantly negative (depending on other factors).
Note Re difference between influence in assessing PR Residency Obligation compliance versus Physical Presence to qualify for citizenship:
To some extent the general influence of frequency and pattern of travel will be very similar when IRCC is assessing PR RO compliance as when it is calculating presence for a grant citizenship application. This is particularly true in regards to what tends to corroborate the PR's reported travel history versus what might invite questions or concerns as to the completeness and accuracy of the PR's reported travel history. Meaning, again, it can go in diverging directions, frequent travel bolstering the case for one but tending to raise questions for another.
And to the extent that the frequent travel and the pattern of that travel tends to indicate the PR is living a life centered IN Canada, that tends to be a positive factor in both the PR RO and citizenship presence assessments.
HOWEVER, for the PR
cutting-it-close the impact in regards to a citizenship application is different. For citizenship falling short by one day MANDATES denying the application. No matter how well-established and settled in Canada the PR currently is. In contrast, for a PR with a PR card application pending, IRCC does not need to so precisely verify all the days. Thus, even if the PR is
cutting-it-close in meeting the RO, if otherwise it appears the PR is well-settled IN Canada, there is little need or incentive for IRCC to more strictly screen the PR before approving the issuance of a new PR card. Even if the PR has fallen short, if the PR now appears established in Canada that is consistent with the purpose for which PR was granted, no need to be overly strict.
But in the citizenship application case the law more or less mandates that IRCC verify with relative certainty that the applicant met the presence requirement, to the day, so for the applicant PR
cutting-it-close there is a more compelling need for IRCC to be more diligent in computing and verifying days in Canada. Which brings this back around to
frequent travel and recognizing the risk of making a mistake increases with the number of trips being reported. So in the context of a citizenship application, where the PR appears to clearly be settled and living permanently in Canada, the influence of frequent travel is nonetheless more likely to trigger increased scrutiny for those applying with a relatively small buffer over the minimum, while a similar frequency of travel would generally significantly strengthen the case for an applicant with a solid buffer.
This leads to even greater disparity in how it goes for some citizenship applicants with a history of frequent travel than how it goes for others.
This also illustrates why so many of us so often emphasize how difficult it is to predict how things will go for a particular individual, since things can go quite differently for individuals with what appears to be very similar scenarios, depending on other factors.
Anyways I wasn't ready to enter that all and ended up hiring an immigration attorney to do this on my behalf. I've been filing taxes in Canada since the month I became a PR but none of that info was submitted as part of my application. I've seen several folks adding bunch of additional documents like NOA's, lease agreements and so on.. All I submitted was two copies of my ID, application form, use of rep and general checklist that they ask for. I understand they do have access to CRA filings and all that but lawyer didn't wanted to add any additional info apart from what they asked in application form.