Yes I think the hearing can continue a r4r but the problem is unless the other requirements for redress are there there will be no redress. 
I am thinking of, injury or damage, appropriate penalty or penalisation, or Error or omission.

In my understanding of the situation there are two issues
 1. The change of type of case is to be done based on the necessity or the requirement of the parties
 2. The validity requirement of the type of case must be met before one can proceed further with hearing or award of redress as the case may be.

Coming to the case " Boat A files a valid redress. After the PC establishes redress hearing validity, and taking "evidence during the hearing", the PC decides "it's appropriate" to change the hearing to a protest. "

  So in this particular case the party has filed for redress which technically is awarded after another party is found to have breached a rule of part 2 and penalized. The party does not qualify for redress.
 During the hearing the PC may protest the other party if it learns about any damage or injury. However, to convert the case to a protest is not the need of PC. The party which filed for redress should be asking for protest. The PC has no reason to change the case to protest. 
Even if PC does so the protest would be invalid as not meeting the validity requirement.

Further as aptly brought out by Angelo, Case 44 makes it amply clear about the need for validity for the case at hand prior to proceeding any further.

The situation may be in any possible "change of types" ...of the case

I think that you would have to consider the validity requirements for each type of hearing that you are going to change to or add as if that was how the request was filed.  For example if the request is for redress and you want to also consider it as a protest then the requirements for a protest filing must be met in addition to that for redress.

Ang - I probably needed to be clearer.  I do not disagree with Case 44.  If the PC is going to change a hearing request from being a protest to RFR, then the filing requirements for a protest hearing do not apply, rather the ones for a RFR apply and visa-versa.  If they are going to consider it to be both then both requirements must be met, although the protest requirements will cover the RFR requirements.

What is quite interesting in the rule, is the use of the words "if it appropriate to do so...". There is nothing mentioned in any guide or manual on when it is appropriate to do so...and it can lead to some great inconsistencies between juries where one protest committee may decide that it is appropriate whether a different one may decide otherwise...especially when it is made clear (either from the form or from the evidence given by the party during the hearing) that they are asking also for redress when the type of the case was only a protest.... 

eg. A form is delivered as protest but clearly describes that there is a capsize.... the competitor thinks that he wants to ask for redress as well. Would it be appropriate to change the type of the case only to conclude that the requirements of redress are not met?

e.g. 2  A form is delivered as protest but clearly describes an incident with physical damage. When the competitor realizes that he is winning the protest, he says, I want to ask redress as well. Would it be appropriate to change the type of the case?

e.g. 3 A form clearly describes in detail an incident with physical damage and all details on how the score of the boat was made significantly worse. The protest committee decides based on the information given in the form to change the type of the case (the validity requirements were met). Then, at the hearing they are about to discuss the redress and the competitor says: "I did not ask for one". 
Now should they change back the type of the case? should they continue as both? 

I doubt there would be redress for a capsise, but if the party does not want redress you do not have to consider it. 

A sailor believes another boat broke a right-of-way rule, which caused a collision and damaged their boat. The sailor wants to protest the other boat for the rule violation and also ask for redress for positions lost. The sailor completes a Request for Hearing form and checks both the 'Protest' and 'Redress' boxes. A protest that transitions seamlessly to a request for redress if the Protestor prevails in her protest. Isn't this procedurally correct?

This is the best way to do it.

Let's take the same scenario I offered, both the 'Protest' and 'Redress' boxes checked, one step further. The Protestor's boat is 32 feet.

The jury finds that the red flag displayed by the protestor was an Opti red flag, 3 x 3. The protest is invalid.

The request for hearing form does describe the incident. Procedurally, is the jury allowed to transition to the redress part of the hearing? Or would the Protestor need to complete and submit a new Request for Hearing form requesting redress which seems redundant?

I do not accept the protest as necessary invalid.

There is no size for the flag but it must be displayed,  if the other boat saw it or should have done then i see the protest as valid

Thanks, us again.
To me it is not the size but the maner of the display. 
Still when in the usa i will try to remember this. 

For the rest look at the worrds in rrs. 

Yes for redress hearings again we have world rules and special prescriptions for usa. The us courts said the rrs did not adequately follow due process, and demanded additional requirements.

Makes life difficult, but I believe it was a windsurfer who lost her Olympic place because of redress to another where she was not a party. Hence the prescription.

If redress had been claimed at the time it would have been resolved, but why use a protest committee/ jury when you can have your expensive day in court.

We sem to be missing a post.
Yes the pc will need evidence an appropriate penalty was taken. 
If there was damsge or injury that may just be a retirement that was  recorded. 
A capsized boat normally cannot claim redress. But there can be redress for damage or injury.   It has to be the damage or injury that causes the detrimental score,  the capsize by itself is nor sufficient. 

Courts should not be involved but we're in this usa case and the Olympics has the court for arbitration in sport on standby. I think the event entry rules insist on it.

 Introduction

RRS 63.2 (c) provides that 'If the validity requirements are met, the protest committee may change the type of case if it is appropriate to do so'. 

The term 'case' is novel.  Seemingly it was introduced in the addition of then RRS 61.4(c) in the 2021 rewrite.  There is no submission explaining the reason for the addition. 

The 'type of case' could be assigned on one of two possible bases: 

I think RRS 61.4(c) is directed at the situation where: 

It appears that the intention of the rule is to make it clear that protest committees are not constrained by a procedural straitjacket, and can, within the requirements of fairness, arrange their hearings as appropriate. 

I suggest that it is wholly appropriate to do this where changes are to the benefit of competitors or parties, however, where a change may penalise a boat, such as by changing a request for redress hearing into a protest hearing, protest committees should be very careful not to erode the procedural safeguards for protestees. 

There are three types of document ('writing') that require a protest committee to call and conduct a hearing (RRS 63.2(a)): 

Each of these requests has a validity requirement. 

Additionally, a protest committee can call a hearing of its own motion: 

There is no validity requirement attached to these hearings called by the protest committee. 

In addition to any applicable validity requirements, every hearing has some prerequisites 

RRS 63.1 provides the following rights of parties: 

These requirements may be summarised as follows

Changes Unlikely to Occur - Changing a Protest Hearing into a Reopening Hearing 

I can't see how this can happen.  If you are in a protest hearing, what is there to reopen? 

If, in a hearing of one protest, you get evidence that causes you to think you may have made a significant error in another protest already heard, then you can reopen that hearing, but that is the reopening of that hearing, not changing the type of hearing. 

I can't see how a request for reopening can change into a protest.  If the decision from the request was to reopen the protest hearing, then the protest hearing will be reopened, but the request for reopening doesn't change into a protest, 

It may be that a protest committee might foresee that reopening is likely and schedule a Reopening Hearing back to back with the reopened Protest Hearing, but that is still two separate hearings.

Again, I suppose it is possible for a witness from another boat to admit to having broken a rule, but yet again, that gives rise to a protest committee protest with notification and time to prepare:  it is a new protest:  the reopening hearing isn't changing into a protest hearing. 

I can see new evidence or new argument in a request for reopening telling the protest committee that they should consider redress.  The protest committee can consider redress without concerning itself with validity, but the power is to call a hearing to consider redress.  I think that is a new hearing, not changing the reopening hearing. 

I can see a request for redress against a protest committee by a party to the original decision that fails under RRS 61.4(b)(1) last clause being appropriately changed into a request for reopening.  Another way of looking at this is that redress is given, redress being to reopen the hearing. 

Sometimes, for example, in protests involving serious damage, protest committees run the hearing along into consideration for redress for the damaged boat.  Some of these will have both boxes on the protest form ticked, some won't.  Other examples are protests involving confusion about marks, which often require redress for some boats. 

AFAIK, it is considered good practice not to do this but to conduct separate hearings. 

I think it is always necessary to state the protest decision before proceeding to consider redress. This may just be a matter of document presentation in the written decision, or the protest committee may hear further from the parties to consider redress. 

Possibly for the USA, the US Prescription may push you into one course or another 

It may be that a protest that is found by the protest committee to be invalid, nevertheless identifies an incident that may give rise to an entitlement to redress, and is otherwise valid as a request for redress. 

RRS 63.4(a)(1) requires that a hearing of a protest that is invalid shall be closed. 

Where redress may involve boats other than the parties to the protest, it will be necessary to inform those other parties of any redress hearing. 

The protest committee should close the protest hearing and call a Redress Hearing, not attempt to change the protest hearing. 

This appears to be the most contentious possible change. 

A request for redress may very well identify a protestee and an incident, for example where it alleges that the race committee has failed to score a boat NSC.  It may not be apparent whether the requestor has merely ticked the wrong box or is deliberately trying to get the race committee to do her dirty work because she has not complied with the requirements for a valid protest.  

The protest committee should deal with this intelligently:  for example, if the ‘informing the protestee’ boxes are filled in it would probably be sensible to schedule and notify it as a protest, and if invalid, change the hearing to a redress hearing. 

What if you have a Hearing Request that complies with the definition of protest but has the redress box ticked and not the protest box?  Suppose it both identifies an incident in which a boat is alleged to have broken a rule and an allegation of an improper action or improper omission by a race committee etc. 

In my opinion if it complies with the definition of protest, regardless of which box is ticked, it is a protest and must be heard in a protest hearing. 

If it also complies with the [content] requirements for a request for redress, you must also hear the request for redress. 

If you find it invalid as a protest, you could change it to a redress hearing, but you would probably run into notification problems. 

Just as you must hear a protest, at least as far as validity, you must also hear a request for redress, which may have much less stringent validity requirements, even though it may be bound to fail in its grounds. 

In other words, you should give the boat the benefit of the doubt and not hold them bound to the box they tick. 

If a request for redress complies with the definition of protest, by identifying a protestee and a protestor and an incident in which it alleged the protestee broke a rule (including where the allegation is a reasonably clear implication from the description of the incident), then it is a protest and should be heard as such. 

Before a protest can be heard the parties, in particular the protestee must be informed of the time and place of the hearing and given access to the protest and given time to prepare. 

If the protest committee, just by seeing only the 'request for redress' box ticked, or otherwise, indicates in its notification to the parties that he hearing called is a Redress Hearing, that is to say, on the protest committee's inspection of the hearing request, it has failed to identify it as a protest, then it is not fair and reasonable for a boat implicated as having broken a rule to correctly identify it as a protest and prepare to defend a protest, rather than take part in a redress hearing. 

A boat, coming to what has been notified as a redress hearing and finding herself required to defend herself against a protest has every right to complain of a procedural ambush. 

In my opinion, if a protest committee has informed parties of a Redress hearing, and it wishes to hear the matter as a protest it should close the hearing and schedule a fresh protest hearing, except, possibly where, in the course of the hearing, the protest committee informs that protestee that it wishes to hear the protest and the protestee agrees that she has had sufficient time to prepare and consents to the hearing continuing as a protest hearing.