A transit authority's attestation campaign returns dozens of identical 'yes' responses submitted within minutes. What quality-review action should compliance take?

Attestation campaigns that return dozens of identical yes responses within minutes warrant quality review: sample and challenge rubber-stamped attestations, requesting evidence or rework before accepting them as compliance proof. For a transit authority, checkbox theater undermines the civic assurance that operators actually verified controls. Accepting all responses because speed proves maturity fails by concept because anomalous velocity more often signals bulk clicking than thoughtful review. Converting every attestation into an automated control and retiring human review fails by concept because automation must be designed and evidenced; mass rubber stamps are not a valid redesign trigger by themselves. Publishing raw responses to a public portal without review fails by concept because unverified attestation dumps are neither quality-controlled evidence nor appropriate public disclosure. Exam caveat: CIS-RC expects attestation quality review when response patterns indicate possible rubber-stamping. Operational check: filter the campaign for identical rapid yes responses, sample a set for evidence challenge, reject or return deficient attestations, and retain the quality-review notes with the campaign record.