The software doesn't impose a time limit on scoring inquiries.

Just found the answer to my own question ….. 90.3(E). 
24hours after results posted.  

I was personally involved in a scoring enquiry a few years back at a major event. I woke up at about 4am as it had dawned on me that the RC may have made an error. I filed the inquiry as soon as the YC opened, following up on an email describing the problem from 4:30am. The Chief Judge asked me how long after I knew there was an error did I notify the RC, and made it clear that my action of filing as soon as they were open was key for that Jury. Sadly, the trophies had all be handed out, and this scoring enquiry swapped 1st and 2nd place. I do wish it had occurred to me immediately after racing, but I was off to the trophy presentation and party and didn't sit down and do the math until the middle of the night. 

Some language about a filing being prompt would be nice as a guideline.

Mike, 90.3(e) must be invoked by the Notice of Race.

Looks to me per RRS 90.3 ( e ) only if stated in the NOR. Else RRS 90.3 (c) 

I just finished serving at a major regatta that placed a time limit on scoring inquiries for Race Committee actions, OCS, NSC, UFD, and BFD. The time limit, stated in the SIs, was 30 minutes after the Race Committee actions were posted on the official notice board.

If the scores are posted or updated late in the evening, it is reasonable to accept scoring inquiries the next morning before racing.

is there any such thing as a scoring enquiry in RRS? A boat that feels they have been mis-scored may request redress, with the normal time limits and exceptions, but beyond that I only see in 90.3c "[RC] determines from its OWN records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly" which on first sight suggests that there is no vehicle other than redress for a competitor to formally query a score.  Presumably, though, if a competitor were to informally alert the RC to the possibility of an error, a diligent RC would then double check its own records or observations and act accordingly.

Jim, that's an interesting point. After reading a bit, I agree that a request for redress is the only formal way to point out an error. However, there is nothing that inhibits a communication from a competitor to the RC point out that they may have made an error and to check their records. In my post above, that is basically what I did. Speaking as an semi-retired PRO, I'd be astounded if the RC didn't review the evidence in its own records based on a formal communications from a competitor, regardless of the status of that communication.

This thread and Beau's & Jim's observations had me thinking (... yes a dangerous thing).

Question:
Does an SI that puts a TL on Scoring Inquiries break 90.3(c)? 

RRS 90.3(c) is in Part 7, therefore ineligible for change by NOR/SI.  I'm looking at and thinking of 90.3(c)'s "shall".  With such a mandate to correct errors from its own records, is it appropriate to limit communication to the RC outside of enabling 90.3(e)?

(A Scoring Inquiry being a request to the RC to review their own records on a particular score)

I was thinking about this too. Is there any formally defined communication to a race committee after the race? Unless I've badly missed something in the rules I don't believe a scoring enquiry has any status in the RRS. Whist obviously unofficial communication can (and quite possibly should) take place, it seems to me that a score can only be changed if the RC finds an error from its own information (even if unofficially pointed out), or under direction from the protest committee. And also that the only communication for the competitor that has any weight in the rules is a request for redress, which goes to the PC, and the PC deliberates the redress request and if appropriate instructs the RC to change the score. So as an enquiry to the RC has no rules status, is there any point in putting it in the SIs? 

I look to the various Race Management Handbooks of MNAs when thinking about an issue that may not be very clear in the RRS:

RYA Race Management Handbook

Q3 Redress Hearings 

In the event of a competitor questioning the scoring (when it is believed to be incorrect) the Race Committee must check the records and if there is a mistake the results must be corrected. This can be done without a hearing - Rule 90.3(c).

 

If it is possible, try to correct the reason for the redress hearing before you reach the protest room. Allow competitors to listen to your tapes at any time during the regatta - many will be entirely satisfied that they are wrong if that is what your tape(s) demonstrate. If they are correct, then you should score them appropriately without the need to for a sailor to continue with their submission requesting redress.

 

8.5 Competitors who have been scored OCS, UFD or BFD, and their support persons, may review the recordings of the applicable start(s).

 

14.12 Competitors and support persons may listen to the voice recording(s) and review the written records of their finishes.

 

 

New Zealand Race Management Guidelines (Same as the above WS policies)

12.15 Competitors who have been scored OCS, UFD or BFD, and their coaches may listen to the voice recording(s) or view the video of the applicable start(s) at the race office.

 

22.13 Competitors and coaches may listen to the voice recording(s) and review the written records of the finishes.

 

 

RRS 90.3(c) When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors.

 

In practice, the jury secretary should accept scoring inquiries, maintain a log, and pass the inquiry along to the PRO for resolution.  This facilitates a competitor’s request for redress if not satisfied by the scoring inquiry.

 
//////////
So I believe that anytime a competitor asks the RC to check a score, it is valid unless 90.3(e) is invoked.  I think the Scoring Inquiry has evolved to help keep track of such inquiries. 

Ang, you make a very good point especially since 90.3(c) is in Part 7 which cannot be changed. 

Scoring inquiries are competitor friendly and may reduce the number of redress hearings.

Jerry -- Thank you. The incident I was describing was dealt with in the way that the RYC recommends. I'm convinced that a SI doesn't satisfy Rule 90.3(c) which direct this to be place in the NoR. This makes sense. All sorts of folks, well beyond the competitors, need to know if the time limit of "24 hours" or an action by the RC "the results are published" has frozen those results. In the case I described above, my records show that 90.3(e) was not invoked by the NoR. I will revert to the OA to point this out to them. Thanks again. Beau

Beau ... that's 90.3(e), not (c). 

Also, it depends on how many "years back" this was.  90.3(e) only joined the RRS in the 2021 quad.   

Ang -- Thanks, I've edited my post to correct it. (This semi-retired PRO needs to put his glasses on when typing). The event I was taking about was post 2021. -- Beau