Thirty-four down to four by restructuring rather than recalculating is the normal result and it is worth being blunt about why: a plan approval surveyor is checking that each required verification has been performed and is traceable to the rule clause that requires it. They are not re-deriving your engineering. If the governing check for a member is not findable in a few seconds, the efficient action for them is to raise a comment, and thirty of your thirty-four comments were that mechanism working exactly as designed. The submission was not wrong, it was not navigable.
The explicit governing-check line per member is the right fix and I would add the one thing that reduces our comments further: an index at the front mapping every applicable rule clause to the page where it is addressed, including clauses that do not apply with a one-line reason why. Surveyors check for absence as much as for correctness, and a clause that is genuinely not applicable but is simply missing from the submission is indistinguishable from a clause that was forgotten. Stating the non-applicability removes a whole category of comment.
