I feel uncomfortable asking writers to make more than very minor edits for nomination purposes, and will generally say 'I'd like to do this and this - is it OK if I go ahead?', so all they have to do is give a one-word answer.

Even if I am objectively certain that the piece meets all criteria and is of at least as high a standard as others I know have been accepted (and I believe I have the experience and judgement to make that call), I don't want anyone wasting their time on a venture that could (and in 30-40% of cases statistically will) fall foul of a partly arbitrary and non-appealable decision by one person.

If I spend a while making tweaks and find it's been a waste, that's one thing - it was my decision. But I don't want to suggest to someone else that the effort will bring rewards I can't guarantee.

This is a (perhaps inevitable) problem of how the programme works.