Glad that someone is interested in my analysis.
(ONLY PERSONAL VIEW)
So far we know that the CAP value should be the number passed c-check, but I think at least it should reflect the number of charged apps.
(charged apps are definitely entered into GCMS system and the cap value should update)
I collected some data from SS and official numbers:
Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 11/7 11/11
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/24 8/12
C-Check Until 7/28 All Aug
Official #[1] 218 242 294 343 392 425 699 1000
(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 92 104 117 138 171 192 250 286
SS Charged # [3] 76 85 89 108 129 145 191 201
(a) [3]/[2] 0.82 0.817 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.70
(b) [2]/[1] 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.286
(c) [3]/[1] 0.344 0.351 0.304 0.312 0.33 0.342 0.274 0.2
All the data and info are from SS and this forum
1. Assume CAP value is *really* based on c-check number, all Aug apps should fall in cap, but now it does not seem so.
2. Assume CAP value is based on charged numbers, it would be impossible for CIC to charge 300 ppl for on NOC in 4 days.
3. Assume CAP was perviously based on charged numbers, and after 11/7 they decided to boost their speed so the 301 counts are based on C-check.
In this case, CIC received 301 applications from 7/24 to 8/12 (19 days including weekends), while they only charged 699 from 5/1 to 7/24.
I know that some 2174 applicants turned to apply 2173 after July, but do you think the amount is reasonable?
5. Let's talk about the ratio (a), (b), and (c). We can see that the ratio are pretty stable before 10/9, but in NOV ratio (b) and (c) dropped sharply.
Several possibilities:
i) 2173 people outside SS increased in an amazing speed, is this possible?
ii) people are getting lazy creating and updating entries on SS after mid-July and Aug, is this possible?
iii) CIC did not actually charged 1000 applications. They are tired of dealing with massive 217X apps so they cut the quota internally. ;D
iv) the CAP value before NOV is way behind charged date or c-check date. That means CIC is counting the numbers manually but not extracting from their system.
Come on....manual calculation in 21st century?
In my opinion, iv) may be most possible because 2174 shows the same trend.
Appendix:
2174 records:
Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 10/21
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/2
Official #[1] 481 537 662 718 778 817 1000
(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 243 261 279 295 318 334 342
SS Charged # [3] 199 214 232 240 257 267 278
(a) [3]/[2] 0.819 0.820 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.799 0.813
(b) [2]/[1] 0.505 0.486 0.421 0.411 0.409 0.409 0.342
(c) [3]/[1] 0.413 0.399 0.350 0.334 0.330 0.327 0.278
2174 Final Charged Ratio (Charged # on SS/1000) : 287/1000=0.278
How do you guys think?
(ONLY PERSONAL VIEW)
So far we know that the CAP value should be the number passed c-check, but I think at least it should reflect the number of charged apps.
(charged apps are definitely entered into GCMS system and the cap value should update)
I collected some data from SS and official numbers:
Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 11/7 11/11
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/24 8/12
C-Check Until 7/28 All Aug
Official #[1] 218 242 294 343 392 425 699 1000
(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 92 104 117 138 171 192 250 286
SS Charged # [3] 76 85 89 108 129 145 191 201
(a) [3]/[2] 0.82 0.817 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.70
(b) [2]/[1] 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.286
(c) [3]/[1] 0.344 0.351 0.304 0.312 0.33 0.342 0.274 0.2
All the data and info are from SS and this forum
1. Assume CAP value is *really* based on c-check number, all Aug apps should fall in cap, but now it does not seem so.
2. Assume CAP value is based on charged numbers, it would be impossible for CIC to charge 300 ppl for on NOC in 4 days.
3. Assume CAP was perviously based on charged numbers, and after 11/7 they decided to boost their speed so the 301 counts are based on C-check.
In this case, CIC received 301 applications from 7/24 to 8/12 (19 days including weekends), while they only charged 699 from 5/1 to 7/24.
I know that some 2174 applicants turned to apply 2173 after July, but do you think the amount is reasonable?
5. Let's talk about the ratio (a), (b), and (c). We can see that the ratio are pretty stable before 10/9, but in NOV ratio (b) and (c) dropped sharply.
Several possibilities:
i) 2173 people outside SS increased in an amazing speed, is this possible?
ii) people are getting lazy creating and updating entries on SS after mid-July and Aug, is this possible?
iii) CIC did not actually charged 1000 applications. They are tired of dealing with massive 217X apps so they cut the quota internally. ;D
iv) the CAP value before NOV is way behind charged date or c-check date. That means CIC is counting the numbers manually but not extracting from their system.
Come on....manual calculation in 21st century?
In my opinion, iv) may be most possible because 2174 shows the same trend.
Appendix:
2174 records:
Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 10/21
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/2
Official #[1] 481 537 662 718 778 817 1000
(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 243 261 279 295 318 334 342
SS Charged # [3] 199 214 232 240 257 267 278
(a) [3]/[2] 0.819 0.820 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.799 0.813
(b) [2]/[1] 0.505 0.486 0.421 0.411 0.409 0.409 0.342
(c) [3]/[1] 0.413 0.399 0.350 0.334 0.330 0.327 0.278
2174 Final Charged Ratio (Charged # on SS/1000) : 287/1000=0.278
How do you guys think?
vijayanand said:naticom, +1 for you
i read your previous posts
you have given good analysis on cap filling for 2173 and estimate on how worldwide spreadsheet looks
However, i have not sent a second application like you.
Feeling unlucky :<