Assuming you applied AFTER October 10, 2017 and, as you recently report, the test was in February 2018:
The timeline is long enough to raise concerns. What sort of concerns is difficult to discern.
Typically RQ in recent years (for applications made since the implementation of an actual physical presence requirement June 11, 2015) involves applicants who applied with a relatively small margin over the minimum and there are questions about errors or omissions which might reduce the number of days credit to less than the minimum required (1095 days for those who have applied since October 11, 2017; 1460 for those who applied between June 11, 2015 and October 11, 2017). Typically these are applicants who applied with very little margin or cases in which IRCC has identified significant errors or discovered the applicant left out one or more trips altogether.
Otherwise, for an applicant who applied with, say, 250 days or more days MORE than the minimum, it should be relatively easy for IRCC to verify the applicant met the minimum presence requirement. After all, even the omission of two or three one-to-two months trips would still result in a margin of MONTHS more than the minimum.
Thus, if an applicant applied with, say, 1350 days present in Canada (for a 3/5 application), while some concerns about possible omissions might trigger RQ, the presence-issue should nonetheless NOT result in a lengthy delay, not so long as yours has anyway, UNLESS IRCC apprehends reason to suspect deliberate misrepresentation, actual fraud.
Thus, if in contrast you accurately, or almost accurately, reported ALL trips abroad, that may indicate there is SOME OTHER REASON why your application has taken so long. Such as a security concern. Which could, for example, be related to where it was you traveled.
That is, at this stage, if it is indeed the presence calculation which is the focus or reasons for the delay, that suggests IRCC apprehends a serious credibility issue, potentially an outright fraud case. That may suggest seeing a lawyer sooner rather than waiting, depending on the extent to which you think IRCC has questions about potentially misrepresenting the extent of your presence in Canada.
But, the RQ might not be what is stalling your case now. It could be a Security concern. The timeline for these types of issues is very, very difficult to forecast. They can range widely. You should have some idea whether this is the problem since you know your history, both from before you came to Canada, and where you have traveled since, and what sort of activities and associations you have had since.
There are some other possibilities. If at some time, any time, you were the client of a consultant who has been caught up in a fraud investigation, that often leads to investigations of that consultant's clients. And that can cause a long delay. There have some recent cases and news regarding clients of the consultant "Sunny" Wang, for example, who have been subjected to investigations, even misrepresentation proceedings, based almost entirely on the fact that they were "Sunny" Wang clients, IRCC now in effect imposing on these individuals the burden of proving they were not personally involved in any fraud.
Another possibility looms if, say, you have spent a lot of time outside Canada since applying; in particular, if you have been living and working outside Canada since applying. This would NOT directly affect any of the qualifications for citizenship, but it is not uncommon for such applicants to encounter unusually long delays.
Bottom-line: you can wait longer, and can probably expect to be scheduled for the oath in the somewhat near future, if you are confident that --
-- you accurately or at least almost accurately filled out the presence calculation, and
-- you know of no reason why there might be a Security concern
-- you know of no reason why there might be a Security concern
INTERVIEWER'S OBSERVATION ABOUT NUMBER OF TRIPS ABROAD:
Ten trips abroad in five years is probably on the LOW side for many if not most PRs applying for citizenship. Particularly so these days in which global mobility is the norm and not at all unusual. I had almost twice that number in four years (my application was processed under the old, old 3/4 rule). And my sense was that was less than many.
I am hesitant to read much if anything from comments made by interviewers. The interviewer might have been a Citizenship Officer but usually is merely a processing agent gathering information for the Citizenship Officer who is the decision-maker. Interviewer comments tend to be superficial and at best gloss over or skirt any real issues, unless there is a direct confrontation as to particular information (some applicants, for example, will be told they left out this or that trip, and asked for an explanation . . . which if it is simply a trip the applicant overlooked, and the applicant otherwise still has enough days to meet the presence requirement, oft times does NOT cause a problem).
Notwithstanding my hesitance to read much from the interviewer's comments, however, there is some hint (just a HINT), the interviewer may have been concealing the real reasons for the RQ. Not that this makes much difference in terms of your own decision-making or what actions you need to take. I mention it because, given 10 months presence over the minimum, there is the suggestion there should be no concern about meeting the 1095 day requirement, and given that in conjunction with how long it has been since submitting a response to the RQ, SUGGESTS something MORE IS IN ISSUE.
Continuing to simply wait a few more months is probably prudent UNLESS you apprehend what other issue there might be and that is something for which a lawyer's help is warranted. But long enough has passed, yeah, there is some reason to have concern and to be paying close attention to what happens (or fails to happen) next.
. I was requested CIT0519 on May 30 because I forgot include my T4 tax papers . Also on July 12, I was requested for fingerprints. This waiting game is so hard .