I am following.
Right now, the movement from one level or one stage of the national security review to the next is premised on the analysis of the information. By essentially assuming a section 25.2 review, one is presuming that the information necessitates it, whereas the analysis in the current format is this: Here is the information; an assessment is made as to whether or not we believe that it could be injurious; further analysis and assessment are then done to move it to the next level, where it's believed that it would be injurious.
By moving to section 25.2, it's not following the information escalation that currently happens, where essentially we're coming to a series of cascading decisions: Is there a national security concern? Is that national security concern founded? Could it be injurious to the national security of Canada? Would it be injurious to the national security of Canada?
By jumping through to the next set of questions, we have presumed that the answer is yes and yes. In our current world, we allow the information to speak as to whether or not the answer is yes.