I would rephrase that as:
If descriptions are unsatisfactory, an interview is rejected and the interviewer is asked to provide a better one. This is why it is important for rejection to happen during the data collection process.
If the description is not sufficient to deduce the appropriate code, then you reject it to the interviewer (action available in API) leaving an explanatory comment (action available in API).
The second part of your explanation contradicts the first one. The first paragraph says that the interviews with unsuccessful coding are rejected to the interviewers. The second paragraph indicates that they are passed to human operators (coders). So, I don’t understand how this protocol is going to work. If, perhaps, and I am guessing here, the text is sufficiently long and there were at least 3 attempts to code with software then coder must be engaged, then you can reject to a different person, and the coder is in fact another interviewer. This can also be done with the API.
Our colleagues from Honduras (@kv700032 ) can step in, as they have used coders in one of the surveys.
Of course the success of the above depends on how this G-code coder works (and I don’t see any information about it online, where is the manual?). Specifically, if it is not learning and produces the same verdict from the same input, then it is ok. But if it evolves somehow with the data that it sees, then it is a different issue, since it may be successful today when the survey is running, but fail later, after the survey is completed. Perhaps, the colleagues from StatCan (@lhunter) could elaborate.
I assume the answer to my second question is “Not used”, meaning that the code assigned in the above process is not used in any validation condition, enabling condition, filtering condition or calculation. Somehow you’ve both skipped this, but this is in fact what matters here.