If you look at how this would roll out, mine would be based on an annual report versus looking at it every two years. If there's a deviation on an annual basis, this would give us a tighter timeline in terms of review, and each year we would hear about any changes, including the estimated timelines and reasons for delay.
This puts the review within the annual report process versus having a separate tracking process, which would have multiple departments tracking separately.
I would prefer to keep it in the existing reporting structure and just add more details required within the existing reporting structure, instead of setting up a separate tracking mechanism.