From the VA Nehmer workflow:
RVSR prepares rating to address:
 Live vs. death issues
 New AO presumptions
 Any deficiency for other AO
presumptions
 All rating deficiencies
 Any pending issues not
related to AO presumptives
 Effective date

There are three statements in this workflow that have a strong potential to be ignored in part or totally by the VA.
"All rating deficiencies" is perhaps the most significant, followed by "any pending issues not related to AO presumptives.

The inclusion of these statements shows that the VA hopes to have the Nehmer process generate a complete re-examination and decision concerning all the issues involved in a veteran's claim.
Sadly, if past performance is used as a predictor, this is unlikely to happen. Mistakes will still be made, be they deliberate, or the result of haste. Amy veteran's receiving a Nehmer review based decision or award really need to review the paperwork in detail for missing issues, and the usual "low ball" ratings. Those veterans receiving a 100% rating for a single condition that also have multiple other rated conditions should also determine if the other conditions, when fairly rated, might add up to 60% or more, thus creating an entitlement to SMC payments above and beyond the 100% payment.

The public, political, and private opinions concerning extended operations still have some bias based upon a "professional" vs. a volunteer or drafted military. While I was a volunteer (at least technically) in the Vietnam era, I don't agree with the bias. A military member is a military member, regardless of how when or where.
I also disagree with the concept that veterans will be treated differently, depending upon dates or locations of service, with the caveat that war zone and combat service should be a major consideration. It's also true that certain conditions and disease are more prevalent in some locations than others. My take on this is that if a condition or disease is unlikely to occur in the locations of a military members life prior to joining the military, and military members have a higher than "normal" occurrence rate, the disease or condition is likely related to military service. The "clear language" meaning of veteran's law also takes this stand, in that supposedly, the VA or other determining authority supposedly is required to "prove" that the disease or condition did not result from military service. Both the VA and the military have openly flouted this intent of the law for decades.

VA vs Freeman
At last! some sense applied to the fiduciary debacle! A bit more needs to be done. Looking at the overall issues, and the VA's responses, along with current laws concerning fiduciaries in general - - -
The VA needs to revise it's regulations, to say the least. The uniform legal codes now followed by most jurisdictions have checks and balances not actually in place in the VA's antiquated system. Further, legal review is available at little or no cost to the VA. I believe there is a case to be made that the VA's fiduciary system should be a "last resort", and when used as a matter of routine or VA convenience, borders on "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse". "If it smells like a Duck, Waddles when it Walks, and Quacks, it's a Duck"

Veteran's Court Overload - - This would not be happening if the VA RO's and the C&P system actually did their jobs correctly.
Part of the problem is the "points system used for RO evaluation. Points are assigned for completion of identified tasks, such as claims processing milestones. They have nothing to do with approval or denial. Next, thanks to the VA's claims system, there is a definite and obvious preference for denial. It's easier to deny, takes less time, and allows points to accumulate faster.

To my mind, the VA RO's have screwed things up for many decades. The court, years down the road, finally as a last resort, ends up with the cases when the veteran is still alive, and still fighting. For instance, I've heard that the number of Vietnam veterans dying each month is very high. This works to the VA's advantage, and is encouragement to deny claims.

Tanks are tanks, and suffer from all the pros and cons of such things. If you don't have air superiority, they are extremely vulnerable to air attack. Even a small infantry team can carry and use missiles that will take out a tank quite nicely. On the other hand, with air superiority tanks can rule a battlefield.

Completely shutting down a production line is often a penny wise/pound foolish move. It's less expensive to keep it going at a low rate, and helps preserve the core of skilled and experienced workers needed. During the shutdown, all the production equipment and facilities still must be maintained. That can cost more than keeping them in low volume production. I have seen many a sole source of spares shut down, never to resume production of the needed items. Skills were lost, new laws prevented restart of the old production lines and methods, etc. due to EPA rules. Actually, the equipment that goes on or in a tank may be a greater problem than the basic tank when it comes down to shutdowns.

Divorce and child support
The whole debacle has to do with federal and state law, and divorce court's interpretation.
Since a veteran is divorced, the "married" rates likely do not apply. The children, though, may or may not be "dependents" under veteran's law, and may or may not be dependents under state law and or federal tax law. (Not necessarily the same in all cases) This just adds to the problems.

I wish there is a way to get "hands on" any written VA directives, etc. to fiduciaries. They might be very useful for those involved in the recent fiduciary debacle.

In the 70's, I was part of the B-1A's engineering development team for certain electronic systems. In the 90's, somehow this resulted in a position in program management for B-52 electronics systems. As B-1 development wound down in the later 70's some of my cohorts were transferred to B-2 development, and I moved on to a fighter deployment and support role in Europe.
What I can and will say is that the B-52 is basically a "trash hauler" for bombs and ordnance. It has been quite successful and useful, to say the least. However, there comes a time when it's really no longer a good idea to try to keep relatively ancient aircraft in service. The B-52, for a myriad of reasons, falls into this category. A part of the problem is that the equipment on the B-52 has numerous areas that need to be modernized","modified","upgraded", or replaced. Then there are airframe and engine concerns.
Actually, the B-1 can be said to be on the verge of the same problem, due in some part to the changes in electronics between the 70's and now. Sooner or later, airframe and engine concerns will also become important.
Dividing resources between the B-2, B-52, and B-1 is not very cost effective or "efficient". Administrative cost savings obtained by reducing the number of support chains can be very significant.
While Russia is no longer a major concern, a couple of other nations are. Who is to say that we might or might not face a similar need (penetration of a very well defended area) in the reasonable future. Planning and "Assets in Place" to support such a situation requires years of advance preparation and investment.

Using savings to substitute for income from earned and entitled veteran's compensation results in a loss to the veteran. If nothing else, interest is lost. Use of the savings is lost for other purposes. Also, when this results in the veteran's total assets declining to under the VA reg limit, the veteran may become entitled to a "full" pension. I'm all for requiring the VA to replace lost income when it is the result of VA caused delay, mistakes, and general lack of response. I'd use the IRS penalty and interest laws as guides. Remember the VA charges veterans interest and "administrative fees" when it thinks a veteran owes the VA money. I've had them try to charge fee and interest for money that I didn't owe the VA, and the VA actually had to refund money to me that it claimed I owed them. (long story) It's still not over, since the VA only went back a few years, instead of the number of years allowed/required by Nehmer rulings.

I wonder if an FOIA request would get the data concerning the "over 125 days" broken down further, IE
Over one year
Over one and one half years
Over three years