True, but that doesn’t change the calculus. You’d expect a policy to set the required standard, and you’d expect a review process to identify major deviations.
As a comparison, look at how nearly all of the big social media platforms all struggle with policy interpretation and enforcement around topics such as misinformation or hate speech.
Sure, so we should be able to see what guidance was followed.
> Discretion from the regulators is needed to accommodate for cases that don't fit neatly into existing policies.
Discretion doesn’t mean policy can be ignored. Discretion would be part of the policy, and we should be able to see what discretion was used to come to these decisions.
Nothing about one drug being denied approval despite having more successful trials than another drug alone demonstrates that policy was ignored or that it wasn't considered.
No, it doesn’t ‘demonstrate’ it, but it certainly makes it into a candidate explanation that can’t be dismissed.