So long as the authorization is given by the client, I doubt that CIC requests the CBSA report from CBSA. It is more likely that certain officers at CIC have authority to directly access the CBSA databases for this information now. So, while it probably does involve a referral, it is probably an internal CIC referral (to designated personnel who go into the CBSA database to retrieve this information), and so a few days makes sense even though it takes a month or more for similar requests made by clients through the ATIP process.
I too recognized the dilemma about day trips. I did not declare all day trips in my residency calculation, but instead reported one for each year and in the "reasons" box referred to it being one of x number of day trips that year (number varied from year to year), so that I at least reported how many day trips I made, and did so relative to each calendar year. Obviously that was not what applicants are instructed to do. While I often say that the best advice is to simply follow the instructions, I recognize there are exceptions.
I cringe whenever I see someone apply with little or no margin over the 1095 day actual physical presence threshold. Many do. For Lei_F it is done, what-is is what-is. More than a couple years ago the prospect of CIC possibly deducting a day or three here or there, so that the total slipped just below the 1095 day threshold, would have been no big deal, not anything to worry about. Probably still is NOT cause to worry much, but there appears to be a lot more riding on whether CIC calculates actual presence to meet the physical presence test or not.
Reminder: a day trip to the U.S. involving a return past midnight is not a day trip. More than a few have reported being tripped up by this. And the problem is compounded because not only does it result in losing a day in the calculation, it also becomes an undeclared trip, and thus potentially damages the applicant's credibility. My sense is that CIC is usually understanding about these things and does not penalize applicants for isolated minor discrepancies. But multiple instances of this, or if there are any other reasons CIC perceives cause for concern about the accuracy and completeness of the travel declarations, can spill into problematic territory.
Note about the potential for RQ: no reason to get anxious about RQ unless it happens. All PRs should, of course, maintain the sorts of records which will need to be submitted if given RQ, and hopefully you have but will never need to present them to CIC. If RQ happens, however, it is no longer just about dates of exit and entry. It is about documenting place of abode for every month in the four relevant years. It is about documenting employment or schooling, likewise for all 48 months in the relevant four years. It is about all the usual factors and ties that are relevant to any residency determination. Both sides of the equation should add up: the travel dates, on one side, and documentation of life actually lived in Canada on the other.
Finally: CIC looks at things in context. For a person who has long been settled in Canada, working in Canada, the fact of having applied with virtually no margin over the 1095 day presence threshold may trigger a closer look and an effort to verify travel dates (such as a check of the CBSA travel history), but CIC is probably nonetheless leaning toward a no-problem path to citizenship unless a significant omission or discrepancy shows up in the report.
