Some reminders:
One of the three formal "background" clearances is a GCMS screening. Last seen internal memos made it clear this check is done and redone each and every time any action is taken on a file. This includes another check when the applicant is scheduled for the oath AFTER a decision to approve the application has already been made. High probably this practice continues.
The GCMS check includes a criminality name-record check. This is separate and apart from the formal criminality check done by RCMP. (And this GCMS name-record criminality check, by the way, is almost always, not always but almost, done any time a traveler is referred to Secondary for immigration during the Port-of-Entry screening when travelers, including Canadian PRs, are entering Canada from abroad).
Thus, for example, this check is done attendant the screening of applications upon intake, before and part of the step that results in AOR. Not sure whether it is always done AGAIN in CPC-Sydney attendant the decision to put the application into an in progress status (meaning CPC Sydney screening is complete and the application is referred to a local office, even if the local office does not actually open and begin processing the application until months later), but it is clear that for at least some applications there are additional screening steps at the CPC-Sydney and thus again another formal GCMS check (since this is required attendant each action taken on the file, and it only involves a simple digital query into respective databases), which again includes a name-record criminal check (for at least name-record hits in Canada and U.S. databases).
Beyond that, the formal RCMP criminality check and the CSIS check are done by referral to the respective agencies, while the application file itself is referred to a local office for processing. That is, the referral to the local office does NOT depend on either the RCMP or CSIS check being completed.
I do not know at which step an applicant's copy of GCMS records will show the file actually in the local office. No reason to care about that. To be frank, blunt even, for the vast majority of applicants, efforts to micro-monitor the progress of the application by obtaining a copy of their GCMS records is a waste of time and effort. It is like watching the water in a pot waiting for it to boil; like staring at plants to watch their growth. With some isolated exceptions, the GCMS records will not contain any useful information, any information that an applicant can use in making decisions or taking action or, even, in anticipating the timeline ahead. By the time an action is taken that will show up in GCMS and have an impact on the applicant regarding which some decision or planning would be relevant, the procedure for notifying the applicant is in progress. Sure, there are some instances in which an applicant can learn, for example, he or she will be required to submit fingerprints SHORTLY before (weeks or a couple or three months) the applicant actually receives the request for FPs. Similarly, by pure chance (or frequency, which would be abusing the system, which it is obvious many do) an applicant might learn from the GCMS records that he or she will be scheduled for the test SHORTLY before actually getting the notice.
In any event, since the RCMP and CSIS checks are being done in parallel, sometimes those clearances are returned and in the applicant's file BEFORE a local office takes any action on the application. Sometimes AFTER.
It also appears, though this is less certain, that the RCMP and CSIS clearances may be complete and submitted to IRCC, without them showing up as complete in the copy of GCMS records an applicant receives . . . it appears that entry of these into GCMS as done may not happen until an IRCC processing agent takes action on the file. So, sometimes GCMS records can show the clearances not done even though the respective agency has completed and submitted the clearance.
It warrants noting there are numerous potential variations between what the GCMS records show as complete versus the actual status of steps in the process. This probably explains some of the inconsistent, some discordant, anecdotal reports based on GCMS records.
Bottom-line: except for applications running into real concerns, or applicants with significant concern-factors (which the applicant himself or herself almost always is rather well aware of, albeit many are either in denial about this or feigning ignorance), GCMS reveals almost nothing the applicant cannot otherwise discern based on what the applicant knows about his or her own application, or will otherwise learn relatively soon anyway.
Otherwise, it warrants remembering that even when GCMS shows this or that clearance, or all the clearances complete, that does not necessarily mean that further processing of the application will not be held up while, YEP, more background screening is done. Even though the GCMS records show them as complete, a referral to the RCMP or CSIS can occur ANY TIME right up to when the oath is actually taken (so, yes, even after the oath is scheduled but has not actually been taken yet). Which means applicants really know very little even when they learn, through the ATIP procedure, webform queries, or telephone queries, that clearances have been complete.
Overall, remember too that the methods, manner, and means of background screening are absolutely confidential. So the most in-depth information an applicant can obtain, including from the respective agencies (CSIS and RCMP), is at most just superficial and NEVER guaranteed to be final. Basically an individual cannot obtain much, if anything at all, other than what the individual either knows or should know (if not in denial about it for example).
None of this is to dismiss the importance of making inquiries, including requesting a copy of the GCMS records, in SOME situations, by SOME applicants. That's a far more complicated subject. That's largely about applicants with issues or applications with problems, which has NOTHING to do with the vast majority of applicants.
For the vast majority of applicants the process is akin to ordering dinner at a restaurant (anyone remember what that was like), no need to check with the waiter every five minutes to learn the status of preparation let alone go into the kitchen to monitor what is on the plate already, the drinks and appetizers will be served in due course (AOR then In Process then testing scheduled), and in time the main course will be served followed by dessert (certificate of citizenship). Sure, for a citizenship application it is in the kitchen, so to cook, so to say, for a lot longer, and the chefs send out requests for this or that (at least the RCMP and CSIS clearances; but other referrals are possible as well, not just to CBSA but to Visa Offices abroad, potentially CRA) and the main course is not served until all those requests have been returned. But for the vast majority of qualified applicants who properly, truthfully, and completely made the application, that's all that needs to be done other than waiting for notice and responding accordingly, even though these days, now especially, the timeline has slid off the main road and is, to mix metaphors, stuck in the mud -- but IRCC will get things going again, albeit not nearly so soon as most would like or some might demand.