The important thing is to be sure the PR's contact information was properly provided. Beyond that there is not much more that can be done but to wait, stay and wait.
My guess, emphasis on GUESS (which is not worth much at all), there was a H&C determination. But given the length of time abroad, assuming the PR can get by without obtaining a new PR card for two plus years, the SAFE approach will be to wait, to stay and wait.
There is a possibility a 44(1) Report was written but NOT yet reviewed. (Your impression otherwise noted. And this seems less likely than other outcomes, but it is more than a remote possibility, rather it remains a significant possibility. If this happened, the PR probably should learn of it within the near future, however, so long as the PR properly provided valid contact information.)
There is a possibility the "notes" to the file constitute a referral to a local, inland IRCC office, which can (and sometimes does) follow-up, and which can lead to proceedings in which a Report and Removal Order will be issued. Likewise, this is a real possibility.
There is a possibility (which to my view seems among the fairly likely) a 44(1) Report was prepared/written and reviewed, resulting in a favourable H&C determination, and thus the Report was not issued to the PR.
That is, based on not-knowing some key facts, my guess, again emphasis on GUESS, it appears there may actually have been a formal determination based on H&C reasons. This comes with strong caveats. Nonetheless, even though it is extremely difficult to know with confidence what precisely occurred or what the outcome was at the PoE, and there are many variables and a wide range of possibilities, if there was a "determination" made, and it was clear the PR was outside Canada for more than the last three years (which necessarily means a breach of the Residency Obligation), the possible "determinations" are limited:
-- inadmissible for a failure to comply with the RO OR
-- there are sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep status despite the RO breach.
After all, relative to the breach of the RO, this is NOT anywhere near a close case. We see many indications of border officials being lenient relative to enforcing the RO, but NOT that lenient. Maybe, but again it appears, as you describe things, there was a formal "determination." And that makes sense.
Some further clarifying observations:
While it is probably true that " 'writing notes' is recommended when an agent does not want to initiate a report," "writing notes" can refer to much more than that; "writing notes" describes entering information about the traveler and case into the system (used to be FOSS, which was merged into GCMS, but whatever the current nomenclature, it becomes part of the client's electronic immigration file), which covers a lot of situations . . . possibly INCLUDING the outcome of a formal decision in reviewing a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. Note, for example, it is clear that many times border officials enter notes without informing the traveler about them.
Warrants noting, if a PR-traveler is examined in Secondary for immigration purposes, it would be extremely unusual if the officer did not write notes to the client's file. Just the reason for the referral for immigration purposes would ordinarily be entered into the system.
Notes to the file can be, essentially, to make a record ("for the record" one might say), but they can also constitute a referral, such as a referral to IRCC, which will trigger further action on the file. If referred to a local IRCC office, for example, a processing agent or officer in the local office will likely be alerted to review the file, in which event the agent or officer can elect to take no further action for the time being or to initiate further inquiries or to take some affirmative action.
Regarding delivery of a 44(1) Report to PR-traveler:
What we know with some confidence is that IF the PR is issued a 44(1) Report AND Removal (Departure) Order, respective documents will be physically delivered to the PR. Thus, for example, if the PR is allowed to proceed into Canada without being given such documents, at least until something more happens the PR has not been issued, and is not "under" a 44(1) Report, and thus days in Canada after that still count toward meeting the RO. The difference may come in distinguishing a *written* or *prepared* but NOT issued Report, meaning a Report that has not yet been formally reviewed, or if reviewed one that has been set aside by the Minister's Delegate.
Thus, it is possible for a Report to be written or prepared but NOT delivered to the PR. It is without any effect unless and until reviewed.
BUT . . . BUT . . . REMEMBER . . . actual practices vary. You use the term "protocol," by which I am not sure if you mean practices, or policy, or both; while policies are subject to change, they remain relatively constant; practices are prescribed in instructions, such as PDIs or Program Delivery Instructions, or Operational Manuals, but these are just guidelines, and actual practices can and do vary, and sometimes considerably so.
Moreover, it can be very difficult for a PR-traveler to know what precisely happened during the PoE procedures since officers do not formally announce or describe the procedure as such. They ask questions, make decisions, offer some information and observations, rarely couching these in reference to formal procedures UNLESS and UNTIL the PR-traveler is subject to a formal outcome, like physically delivered the documents attendant the issuance of a 44(1) Report TOGETHER with a Departure (Removal) Order.
Ever been advised "your application for entry into Canada has been approved" during a PoE examination? Many if not most travelers are NOT aware that just showing up at the PIL at a PoE constitutes making "a formal application to enter Canada," but that is precisely the process. And "you're OK," or "you can go," or such, as everyone understands these, mean it is OK to proceed on into Canada, even though technically it means "your application for entry into Canada has been approved" and thus you can proceed.
