I'm afraid I don't know the details of the case you're referring to, so I'm not sure I can give a perfectly tailored answer.
In order to answer that question, I would want to go and look at what might have changed between those assessments to determine if there was any justification for a different result. If nothing had changed, then perhaps we should look at that in one way. If there had been new evidence that had come to light, that would also be relevant.
I think one of the recommendations that we made was that collateral information and the existence of prior requests should be accessible to subsequent assessors to inform them and to also shed light on repeated assessments so that this could be determined, evaluated.