eventual amnesty policy are going to make or break how good this change is.

I would like to see amnesty also apply to the accused if they are determined to not be at fault. I think this protection is almost as necessary as protecting the victim to shield the accused from false reports.

I'm a bit concerned about limiting the amnesty to "possible Honor Code violations ­occurring at or near the time of a reported sexual assault". I'd feel better with that expanded to violations discovered in the course of the investigation. Otherwise you'd still have an issue with a victim that had been previously violating the HC, say with a SO, who was then assaulted by their SO. It seems like that language would still leave room to punish the victim for past violations even if they were assaulted at a later date. For cases like that it's back to the same reporting issue that these changes are trying to solve and bad optics for BYU.

In short (too late) I'd prefer erring on the side of more protections for the students than fewer. Let their bishops and God deal with those that slip through the loopholes.