Do you think the urgent process was accepted ?
In general terms I agree with
@nassb that this is likely to be more or less an acknowledgement that the request has been received and will be considered, NOT an indication of whether the process will be expedited.
However, it is utter nonsense to assert that IRCC procedures, including communications, are due to personal motives or flaws. It's a bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies are what bureaucracies do. They constitute the embodiment of impersonal decision-making and action.
Which is to say, anyone being "lazy" has nothing to do with it. Internal operational guidelines and practices, and the criteria employed, dictate what actions are taken, and what communications are sent and when.
Further note: Most of the steps in the process are largely mechanical, very little subjective thought or intention or personal judgment on the part of the processing agents and officers involved. Some, sure, such as if and when something in the application is noted triggering a concern, some of that (like whether to make an investigatory referral) can be subjective, a personal judgment call. And in close call cases, such as where there might be some concern about the applicant's actual physical presence, then some personal, subjective element of decision-making can influence whether a citizenship officer proceeds to approve the application or not, and if not, then refer the application to a Citizenship Judge.
But most of it, by far, is checking off boxes, just checking off boxes. When the application has gone through the steps necessary for all the requirement boxes to be checked, and they are checked as met, a decision is made, the application is approved.
And that is all done much like a product moves down an assembly line. In order. So it typically takes a rather compelling situation for IRCC to pull an application out of line to put it ahead of others.
The effect of non-routine processing may be illustrated similarly. If at step C in the assembly line there is a reason to pull the product, the item or application, off the assembly line, to do something other than what is done to all the items/applications moving down the assembly line, that in effect takes it out of the order it was being processed in. When that side-trip, non-routine action is completed, the item/application goes back onto the assembly line, back into line at step C. However many other items/applications have gone on through in the meantime, on the assembly line, are now in front of the one pulled off for non-routine processing. That is, it is not as if anything is done to make that item/application catch-up to where it was before . . . it is in its new spot on the assembly line.
Again, all of this is far more mechanical than it seems many acknowledge. If and when there is a lazy
guy (the
gals are never lazy, or so I've heard, though perhaps that comes from a prejudiced source) working the line, that can slow down the line. But it does not determine what gets done (like whether this or that particular communication is sent), since again what gets done is dictated by internal operational guidelines and practices, and the criteria employed.