That last paragraph is really strangely worded IMHO.
It is my understanding that these reports are there to deal with the facts of the case. It is of no consequence that some onlookers thought that it seemed to take a long time. And procedures should not be changed in response to the perceptions of third parties.
Surely, the key point is how did it actually take? Is that acceptable? If not, what caused the delay and how can this be addressed in future.