This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously the IAAF can't force countries to bring everyone making A (or B in single-qualifier events). The funny thing is that most poor countries (those with an excuse for tight rationing) send all their qualifiers, whereas a few rich ones (e.g. Canada, Netherlands, although NOT the US) feel the need to add criteria on top of the IAAF's.
No need to be rude. Especially when you're wrong:
OBVIOUSLY whether someone runs 20.49 or >20.49 in the 200 (for example) is not a subjective statement. What clearly IS subjective is the decision-making around what level above the A is "worth" sending. These decisions (e.g demanding 20.49 "A+" vs 20.55 A in the 200, requiring repeat Bs from A qualifiers, entirely ignoring the IAAF A/B in the marathon, adding a "rising star" category, etc etc) are not "objective" by any means.
To simplify: Judging whether someone has met the arbitrary criteria is quite objective (although AC still has trouble, eg with worlds). Setting the criteria is not.
Wow. You are either deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or have misunderstood it.
Sounds like we both hope none of the current A qualifiers get left home because of extra AC demands. 20 days!