You are a policy officer in DG GROW working on a draft regulation on platform liability. DG JUST has sent a formal inter-service consultation response that raises seven distinct legal objections, three of which directly contradict positions already agreed in writing with DG CONNECT. The deadline for consolidating all ISC responses into a revised working document is in four days. Your head of unit is travelling and only reachable by email. Two of DG JUST's objections appear to rest on a misreading of the relevant case law. You need to decide how to proceed.
Quale risposta è la PIÙ efficace?
Perché questa è la risposta più efficace
This response demonstrates systematic analytical thinking: the officer decomposes the problem into its component parts, distinguishes factual errors from genuine disagreement, uses legal sources to challenge assumptions, keeps the hierarchy informed, and proposes a structured trilateral forum to resolve the conflict—all core positive indicators for Analysis and Problem Solving.
Perché questa è la risposta meno efficace
Acknowledging receipt and proceeding on the basis of previously agreed positions while deferring DG JUST's substantive concerns effectively ignores a formal inter-service consultation response. It fails to identify or address the root causes of the conflict, risks a legal challenge to the regulation later, and shows no analytical engagement with the objections raised.
Le altre risposte
Forwarding to DG CONNECT delegates the analytical work and abdicates ownership of the coordination problem, but at least recognises the conflict and seeks resolution. Bracketing all objections preserves the issue for later scrutiny but conflates factually weak objections with genuine ones, adds noise to the working document, and fails to distinguish between problems that can be resolved analytically now versus those requiring negotiation.
