I largely concur in the post by eileenf, probably based on the same source (an internal CIC memo, as I recall), although I do not clearly recall the specific numbers . . . but the RQ trigger is at least two errors in reported dates of entry or exit, though it may very well be three.
That information is dated, so the extent of a discrepancy which triggers RQ may have changed. My sense, though, is that any change would be more liberal than this, not more strict.
If (IF) that is the only mistake and discrepancy in your entire application, congratulations. You did a remarkable job. That alone should certainly not cause RQ or otherwise be a problem. (The majority perhaps think they submitted perfect applications, and the majority of them are probably wrong about that . . . making minor mistakes is more likely the norm.)
Note: In general I find it difficult to offer responses to these sorts of queries because it calls for an assessment of the prospective impact of a single factor. My apprehension is that too much weight tends to be focused on the individual factor in isolation when, in practice, what happens, how it goes, will depend on a wide, wide range of factors and how they fit together (or do not fit together).
As noted, it is not likely this one discrepancy, by itself, will make much if any difference, whether that is at the triage screening phase or later in an interview. But in conjunction with other factors, it could be a focal consideration among others, depending on . . . well, depending on a whole lot of other things.
So I hesitate to offer an opinion about how things will go for a specific individual given this or that particular item of information.
In the abstract, though, this one discrepancy (1) does not itself trigger RQ (so far as we know and can infer, given that the criteria are always subject to change, are indeed changed periodically, and CIC does its best to withhold the details from the public), and (2) should not otherwise raise any significant questions let alone be problematic.
This query alludes to the overall question about what triggers RQ.
And this is a subject which has come up (which it does periodically, again and again, as this is one of those things that comes and goes in forum discussions) in other topics. While we do not precisely know the formal criteria, or how they are applied, there is a lot of information and history illuminating many aspects of what tends to be, in the view of CIC, a reason-to-question-residency. But that is a big topic, and ultimately it tends to be largely academic because there are so many factors which might influence CIC's decision about sending RQ that trying to figure out why is often (if not usually) a wild-goose-chase. Moreover, once RQ is issued, residency is in question, and the applicant needs to prove residency across the board, all elements of residency being in play, and it is not at all about responding to the particular factor or issue which triggered RQ. So, generally, it is rarely worth trying to figure out why RQ was issued to a particular applicant.
