What is difficult to understand is why anyone would so much as hint, let alone overtly suggest that there is not a big difference in applying with 1096 days versus having a decent buffer.
So, let's be clear: it is FOOLISH to apply without at least several days buffer, at the very minimum. Whatever you mean by "technically." Any suggestion otherwise is a disservice to those trying to decide when is the best time to apply.
NOTE: even IRCC explicitly suggests that applicants wait to apply with more than than what meets the requirement.
There is a lot, lot wrong with suggesting it is OK for applicants to apply when they just barely meet the minimum presence requirement. Sure, some applicants have no option (for example, those whose work requires extensive travel abroad, for whom waiting longer will not actually result in a bigger buffer). Sure, many and probably MOST applicants will be OK even if they applied with little or no buffer. But the RISKS are enough to nonetheless MAKE it OUTRIGHT FOOLISH, utterly foolish, to not wait long enough to have at least ten days more than the minimum.
Technically that's a big deal. Really, this is a big deal.
Even for those who might not avoid RQ-related non-routine processing (there is nothing an applicant can do to guarantee not getting RQ), how it goes in "residency-case" processing can vary widely. And it is likely that a good margin can make a big difference in how it goes for those subject to RQ. There can be a big difference between submitting what is requested in a RQ-lite, which might mean the process takes three to six months longer than it does for those routinely processed, versus the potential for a referral to a Citizenship Judge in a full-blown RQ case, which can add well more than an EXTRA YEAR PLUS to the timeline. And it is almost certain that a good buffer can dramatically reduce the risk of the latter.
And while more than a few applicants appear to believe they can and will be PERFECT in reporting travel history, EVERYONE makes mistakes, and for those who are certain they make no mistakes they are making the very big mistake of overlooking the fact that EVERYONE makes mistakes, including them. Sure, many have simple travel histories and can be confident they got every date correct. But their best insurance is nonetheless a BUFFER . . . remembering, after all, it is not just the number of days IN Canada that matter, but the number of days a total stranger bureaucrat concludes the applicant was for-sure IN Canada.
Again, I do not doubt that most applicants (meaning more than half) will be OK with a minimal if any buffer. But the number at risk for it going otherwise is larger than a few . . . SO, again, it would be FOOLISH for applicants to gamble on that rather than wait at least ten or thirty days to apply with a buffer.
