The applicant may be a person or a governmental unit (§ 4-202(a)); the schema gives the actor one kind, so it is typed as a private party.
No written application is needed for records on the official custodian's § 4-201(c)(2) list, or when the custodian waives the requirement (§ 4-202(b)); the model always starts from a written application.
If the custodian decides on initial review that the record does not exist, the applicant must be told immediately (§ 4-202(d)(1)); the model uses only the 30-day outer limit for the after-search case in § 4-202(d)(2).
Any time limit in § 4-203 may be extended by up to 30 days with the applicant's consent (§ 4-203(d)(1)); this consent exchange is not modelled as a step. Without such an extension (or a pending dispute under § 4-203(d)(2)), production stays capped at 30 days after receipt even when a delay notice was sent; the time stated in the notice does not extend it.
Failure to produce the record in accordance with § 4-203(b) is a denial (§ 4-203(b)(3)). The model shows two separate outcomes: 'deemed denial' when the 30-day production timer passes without production (on_miss), and 'record produced late' when the record was delivered, but only after more than the reasonable period needed to retrieve it (§ 4-203(b)(1)), even if within 30 days; the second still counts as a denial although the applicant has the record. The bona-fide-dispute qualifier and the remedies for review of a denial are in other parts of Title 4 that are not modelled; they are recorded as a cross-reference. The text does not say whether such a denial triggers the written statement duty of § 4-203(c), so both outcomes end without one.
The delay notice under § 4-203(b)(2) is due within 10 working days of receipt, while the grant/deny decision may take up to 30 days, so the model sends it (only when the custodian reasonably believes production will take more than 10 working days) before the decision; the notice branch and the no-notice path rejoin at the decision. If the notice is not sent within 10 working days, the timer also leads to the decision: the process does not end, and the duties to grant or deny and to produce within 30 days continue (§ 4-203(a)(1), (b)(1)). The only stated effect of skipping the notice is that a later failure to produce may not be considered the result of a bona fide dispute (§ 4-203(b)(3)). The notice carries only an estimate of the range of fees, so it does not wait for the § 4-206 fee decision. If the application is later denied, the text does not say what becomes of a notice already sent.
§ 4-203(c)(1)(i) requires the written denial statement within 10 working days but does not say what starts the clock; the model counts from the denial. The text gives no consequence for a late statement, and nothing in it cancels the separate duty under § 4-203(c)(1)(ii) to allow partial inspection, so a missed 10-day timer leads on to partial inspection instead of ending the process; the duty to give the statement is not lifted by the delay.
The written denial statement must give (1) the reasons, (2) for a § 4-343 denial, why it is necessary and why redaction would not work, (3) the legal authority, (4) a brief description of the undisclosed record that lets the applicant assess the authority, without disclosing the protected information, and (5) notice of the remedies (§ 4-203(c)(1)(i)); these are contents of one notice, not separate steps.
§ 4-203(c)(1) lists the written statement (i) and partial inspection (ii) as two duties of the denying custodian without ordering them; the model puts partial inspection after the statement. Duty (ii) covers 'any part of the record that is subject to inspection', so the step is unconditional and is empty when no part is inspectable (the ruling table's 'part_inspectable' input only changes the ruling text).
The grounds for denying inspection are in other sections of Title 4 that are not included here; the 'inspection_allowed' input of the ruling table stands in for them.
A custodian may not ignore an application on the grounds that it was intended for harassment (§ 4-203(c)(2)); this prohibition is not a separate step.
Fee details not modelled as table rules: fees for customized formats (§ 4-206(b)(1)(i)), proration of staff and attorney review costs (§ 4-206(b)(2)), charges for reproduction facilities the custodian lacked (§ 4-206(d)(2)), the definition of 'indigent' (§ 4-206(a)(2)), and the duty of a local school system custodian who charges a fee to give written notice that the applicant may complain to the Board (§ 4-206(f)). The fee table splits the search/preparation fee (2-hour rule, § 4-206(b)-(c)) from the copy fee (another law, § 4-206(d)(1)), because (d)(1) displaces only copy, printout and photograph fees. A waiver is discretionary ('may waive') and is decided as a separate step on top of the computed fee.
The official custodian and the custodian may be different people; the text does not say how fee decisions are coordinated with production.
Missing the 30-day grant/deny limit of § 4-203(a) has no stated consequence in these sections (the deemed denial of § 4-203(b)(3) is tied to production by a custodian who approves), so that timer keeps an end event of its own.