There was a rumor on the Twitts today about a study section experience in which the triage line was severe (35%, yikes)...but that isn't the bad part. In a 10% or worse payline environment, discussion of the top 35% seems appropriate.
What was absolutely horrifying was the blocking of the usual (IME) rule that any reviewer could lift any application out of triage and insist on discussion.
I believe this to be an absolutely fundamental safety valve to avoid the frequently bemoaned notion that "one biased reviewer torpedoed my grant".
I myself have found occasion to pull grants up for discussion. I doubt I ever got those particular versions funded but I know for sure of ones that got funded on a subsequent revision. I can't prove that my pulling it up for discussion led to the favorable outcome for the revision. But I think it safe to assume that if this path is replicated elsewhere in CSR then, statistically, this has an effect.
Don't get me wrong, one reviewer saves are going to be rare...but what if it were your grant?