I have a general, but fundamental, issue with how Triage interacts with H&I. My premise¹ is that potential improvements are not subject matter specific. You may change some tags around, or correct some spelling, code formatting or layout.

Why do you need 2 people to make this assessment?

One person takes their time to look through the post in Triage to identify, "Yes, there are several non-trivial changes which can be made to the post by someone other than OP."

Then someone else finds the same post in the H&I queue and has to make that same assessment. In addition, they have to actually make the changes.²

There is clear overlap in what reviewers are doing across these two queues. Good reviews take time, and reviewers' time is precious. So I stand by my initial comment: don't spend time fixing an inefficient process.

¹ As exhibited in this list of improvements possible via H&I.

² There's a counter-argument to say that the Triage reviewer only has to find one error that someone other than the OP can conceivably correct. But, in my mind, this is insufficient. For instance, an irrelevant spelling error doesn't warrant being passed to the H&I queue at all. In many cases, there's still a need to read the entire question carefully.

I have a general, but fundamental, issue with how Triage interacts with H&I. My premise¹ is that potential improvements are not subject matter specific. You may change some tags around, or correct some spelling, code formatting or layout.

Why do you need 2 people to make this assessment?

One person takes their time to look through the post in Triage to identify, "Yes, there are several non-trivial changes which can be made to the post by someone other than OP."

Then someone else finds the same post in the H&I queue and has to make that same assessment. In addition, they have to actually make the changes.²

There is clear overlap in what reviewers are doing across these two queues. Good reviews take time, and reviewers' time is precious. So I stand by my initial comment: don't spend time fixing an inefficient process. The workflow as a whole should be restructured.

¹ As exhibited in this list of improvements possible via H&I.

² There's a counter-argument to say that the Triage reviewer only has to find one error that someone other than the OP can conceivably correct. But, in my mind, this is insufficient. For instance, an irrelevant spelling error doesn't warrant being passed to the H&I queue at all. In many cases, there's still a need to read the entire question carefully.