Missed five-business-day deadline (RCW 42.56.520(1)): the act does not say that silence is a denial, so the consequence is 'unstated'. The timer routes to the requester's court motion because RCW 42.56.550(4) awards costs to a person who prevails in an action seeking 'the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time'; that this is the route for a missed five-day response is an inference, and 550(1) itself speaks of a person 'denied an opportunity to inspect or copy'. On that no-response path neither anchor of the 550(6) one-year limit (a claim of exemption or a last installment production) occurs, so the act sets no start for that period; the one-year timer on file_motion still runs there in the model, which is an inference.
Internal review (520(4)): the statute requires agencies to establish review mechanisms but does not say who starts the review, whether the requester must ask for it, or what a review that reverses the denial leads to. Review is shown as following every written denial; at the end of the second business day it is deemed completed and becomes final agency action, which the model treats as 'deemed-denial' with the timer leading to the court motion. The model does not require the review to be exhausted before suit, and the statute does not say it must be.
Partial denials: under 520(2) a denial may be made 'as to all or part of the request', so a response that releases part of the records and withholds the rest is a denial (denial_made) that also provides records (records_provided). It goes through the written statement of reasons and the 520(4) internal review, and the non-exempt part is then released at produce, from which the requester may still contest the withholding in court. The statute does not say the release must wait for the review; the order is a modelling convenience, because one exclusive gateway cannot send the same case down two paths at once. The first-response table has no partial-denial rule because 520(1) lists only full denial as option (e).
Clarification (520(1)(d) and (3)): asking for clarification of an unclear request is permitted, not required ('may ask', 520(3)(a)); an agency may instead answer an unclear request in another of the five ways, such as an estimate under (c), so the table's input is whether the agency chooses to seek clarification rather than whether the request is unclear. The requester's answer is not a separate step; whether the requester clarified is an input to final_response. If the requester does not answer and the entire request is unclear, the agency need not respond; otherwise it must respond to the clear portions. No time limit for the requester's answer is stated.
Estimates (520(1)(c)-(d), 550(2)): the agency's later response must come within its own 'reasonable estimate', not a fixed period, so respond_later has no timer. A requester who thinks an estimate of time or of charges is unreasonable may move the superior court under 550(2), where the agency bears the burden of showing it is reasonable (challenge_estimate, test_estimate). The model offers that motion right after the first response (condition estimate_contested, evaluated before the agency's later response); the statute sets no time for it and does not say what order the court makes, so the path ends with the estimate upheld or with an award of costs. That the 550(4) award applies is an inference for time estimates (an action for 'the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time') and is not stated for estimates of charges. The duty to respond continues during the motion, which the model does not show.
Internet links (520(1)(b)): if the requester says they cannot access the records online, the agency must provide copies or allow viewing on an agency computer. This duty is carried in the response text of the link rules of both tables rather than as a separate step, and the act gives no deadline for it.
Request form and content (080): no official format is required, though agencies may recommend a form or web page; a request for all or substantially all of an agency's records is not a valid request for identifiable records, but a request for all records on a topic, keyword or name is; an agency may not deny a request solely as overbroad; it may not distinguish among requesters or ask their purpose except under the cited exemptions; and it may deny a 'bot request' that is one of several from the same requester within 24 hours if responding would cause excessive interference. These shape the request and the denial input but are not separate steps.
Fees: charges for copies are governed by RCW 42.56.120, which is not among these sections; 080(2) only requires agency copying facilities to be made available unless that would unreasonably disrupt operations. No payment step is modelled.
The legislature's offices (secretary of the senate, chief clerk of the house) follow 520 alongside agencies and are folded into the single 'agency' actor. Court outcomes: 550 sets the agency's burden of proof, de novo review, in camera examination and hearings on affidavits, and mandatory costs and fees plus a discretionary penalty of up to $100 a day for a prevailing requester; it does not spell out an order to produce, so the court path ends at the award or at the agency being upheld.
Actions under 550 must be filed within one year of the agency's claim of exemption or the last production of a record on a partial or installment basis (550(6)); the timer on file_motion runs from whichever of these applies, which the model does not distinguish.