My 2cents:  

EU Football (soccer over here) has had altercations that crippled players for life. The Red Card didn't get invented by someone who was just fooling around thinking that the sport needed another rule. The game, as played, needs that penalty to be sever and effective. A  detailed review of various photo and video sources shows that the call was well justified. My opinion: the call was exactly correct and it was against my country's team.

Sadly, this sport (and others) would be far better served if it explicitly stated that there was no way to overturn the official on the field except for proven bias or corruption on the part of that official. For obvious reasons, many of us in the USA are appalled that there was any way that a sports executive with a horrific reputation would overrule the official because of a phone call from another executive with a horrific reputation.

Sadly, the level of corruption in sport and other fields seems to go up as the square of the dollars involved.

I think you're probably right that the precedence provision has to be in the NOR.

RRS 86.1(b) says

The notice of race or sailing instructions may change a racing rule.

It might be argued that because:

 the race committee, through its SI, has no authority to change the NOR, although it might be possible to obtain the OA's agreement to changes made by the race committee

I think that, wherever the provision is, each 'conflict' between the SI and the NOR is a change to the NOR and is subject to the adequate notice requirement of RRS 89.2(b), that is to say this SI have to be published an adequate time before the effect of each change in the NOR.

If the precedence provision was in the SI and not in the NOR, that would indicate me that it was not part of a well thought out document control strategy, and I would regard any 'conflict' with considerable suspicion.

Bear in mind that most 'conflicts' occur by mistake, rather than being deliberate.  If the race committee changes the NOR by mistake in the SI, and there is a precedence provision, the race committee and the protest committee are bound hand and foot by the mistake.

John,

The way you are describing this seems to me to be unnecessarily complicating things.

So, for the first 3 regattas, you have a protest committee with no dispensation from appeals.

I think deliberately constituting a 1 judge protest committee is a very bad idea.  Among other things you are letting the OA off the hook for finding some local judges in training to get experience.

I don't understand what you mean by 'an IJ online for any support required'.  If you have one judge in person at the venue and other judges available on line, you have a protest committee that can do hearings with some members on line.

I have had quite a bit of success with one experienced judge at the venue doing Arbitration:  in my experience that can dispose of most protests, and it buys you a bit of time to get an on line hearing organised.

What you don't have is properly constituted International Jury Panels in accordance with RRS N12.4(b), so a party that is dissatisfied with the local committee's decision is not entitled to a hearing by the full International Jury.  What has to happen is an aggrieved party has to appeal to the MNA in accordance with RRS 70 and Appendix R, and the MNA then needs to appoint the IJ on your fully constituted International Jury to decide the Appeal.

Ok .. it seems to me in this case, the clew of the sail is sheeted to a boom which qualifies under 55.3(c).   55.3(c) is an "exception" to the main text and limits of 55.3's 1st sentence. 

Now that 55.3's first sentence doesn't apply ... where in the rules does it say you can't exert a forward force against a boom with a stick .. inside or outside the shear line?

Such a stick is neither a spin nor whisker pole, 

The device that is exerting the outward pressure on the sail is the 55.3(c)-allowed boom .. not the "stick" in question.  The stick in question is exerting a forward pressure on the boom .. not an outward pressure on the sheet or clew. 

I can't find a rule which limits the stick as long as the stick is applying pressure only to a 55.3(c)- qualifying boom. 

Is there a reason a finishing window couldn’t be based on the first boats elapsed time plus x%.
I.e. 50% = first boat 60 minutes, last boat 90 minutes, or first boat 120 minutes, last boat 180 minutes. 
The % could be chosen based on the handicap spread of the division - tighter fleet, smaller %, wider fleet = bigger %. 
I think this would solve an issue for my club. We currently only have a time limit of 2 hours for 1st then 3 hours for last. Our winter series can be either cans or harbour courses. The 2-3 hours is really for the longer harbour courses. We’ve had short cans courses lately due to light winds. The first boat has taken 40 minutes, the rest of the fleet done by 50, but one boat who should be mid fleet is off the pace, and took 100 minutes. Wore a bit thin with the start boat, who then got back in the dark, which then delayed prize giving for everyone else, but didn’t break the time limit rule. However, a 30 minute window wouldn’t be big enough on a 2 hour race, but 1 hour is excessive on a 30 minute race (we had one race which only took 20-30 minutes) . Can it be flexible as suggested? Or must we resort to the complicated (for or RO’s) formula / app to calculate? I can’t see anything in the rules.