Assume we have a regatta that is using either the Velocitek or Vakaros race-management system. It's calling OCS and recording finishes. Also, assume there is no language present otherwise restricting a boat's ability to R4R based upon a race-management system failure.
Do we need to add any language to provide a boat the ability to R4R based on an error by the system itself .. and not based upon an operator-error on the part of the RC personnel who is operating it?
In other words, to the extent that the Race-Management System is performing a "race committee function" .. chosen and implemented by the Race Committee .. is an error by the system clearly an error of the RC absent an execution-error on the part of an RC-human?
Or .... given the quick advances of AI .. might we need to add to the term "Race Committee" some words which make that clearer? Such as ..
Race committee The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person [, system] or committee performing a race committee function.
The checks are, no fault on the competitor, the rc acrtion has to be improper.
If the electronic starting horn had a short circuit and sounded the final start horns in Appendix U at the wrong time, I think we'd call that an improper act of the race committee and grant redress. Respectfully, I think the same principle applies to an error (rare) with automated starting systems.
That said, where we've generally landed to equate "the hail is a courtesy" to automated starting is to state that a request by a boat alleging a failure of Velocitek/Vakaros is invalid. If a sailor thinks there was a problem, they should discuss with a committee (RC is best practice), who can request redress if there's something anywhere near balance of probabilities that there could have been a real failure. Early on, we saw plenty of people who challenged any OCS and demanded to "hear the tapes" in frivolous redress. Closing the door for competitors but leaving it open for committees has worked well across MANY events.
I am aware of less than 5 times redress has been given across hundreds of regattas. While I have no experience with the Velocitek system, the Vakaros system is in my opinion, better than most eyes calling lines. Failure rates are increasingly rare.
That answers a diff question than I raised ... but since you raised it ... let's go there.
I think it's unacceptable to remove a boat's right to request redress and to make any request invalid ... simply on the basis that it's a claim of an error of the system.
Any R4R for a claim of incorrect OCS call is already a very high bar, even without these systems. I see no reason to strip boats of their R4R rights in the presence of these systems.
The RC is not necessarily a neutral arbiter in this regard. They might have invested interests in not wanting errors to be found (even subconsciously) ... thus possibly undermining the confidence in these systems.
There is no rule which puts an advocacy obligation on the RC for a boat's position ... and I am not aware of any rule which instructs the RC to apply a "balance of probabilities" in whether or not to seek redress for a boat. An RC "may" seek redress ... that's as far as it goes ... 100% discretionary.
IMO ...Balance of probability determinations are the realm of the PC .. who is equipped to take evidence and apply it. There is no such system for an RC ... and no process defined to ensure all the pertaining info is gathered and considered ... or obligation to proceed if that "balance" is tipped.
Yes, an RC shall make corrections based on its own records (RRS 90.3(c)) ... but we have already determined that the RC has a record to rely upon (with a boat's claim the record is in error).
So ... I have no problem following the standard ScoringInquiry -> R4R process ... but removing the R4R possibility does not serve the competitor IMO.
Racing should not be a lottery of outside events, the weather is bad enough