The current routing behavior for obtaining approvals on "Setup Schedule Status Routes" seems to take the "looser approval path" when multiple rooms are included in a schedule AND the selected rooms have different routing rules. Consider the following scenario described in a pseudo-code manner.
Assume valid rules (i.e. nothing is broken) for "STATUS=Submitted".
Assume the following rules for "STATUS=Approved".
ROUTE-A; If "LOC=X" and "ROOM=1" and "STATUS=Approved", then "When Routed to=PRINCIPAL, Route to Next=ADMINISTRATOR".
ROUTE-B: If "LOC=X" and "ROOM=2" and "STATUS=Approved", then "When Routed to=COACH, Route to Next=PRINCIPAL".
ROUTE-C: If "LOC=X" and "ROOM=2" and "STATUS=Approved", then "When Routed to=PRINCIPAL, Route to Next=ADMINISTRATOR".
Assume a SUBMITTED schedule contains the following requested facilities:
LOC=X, ROOM=1, and ROOM=2
The current behavior I've experienced is the approval route taken will be ROUTE-A, which is a looser, less stringent approval path. It will not take the tighter, more stringent paths of ROUTE-B and then ROUTE-C, which is associated with ROOM=2. By taking ROUTE-A, a key reviewer for ROOM=2 (i.e., COACH) is completely bypassed. This shouldn't be in my opinion; it's an undesirable behavior.
The desired behavior should be to take the tighter, more stringent paths of ROUTE-B and then ROUTE-C. In this case, not a single key reviewer for ROOM=1 and ROOM=2 is bypassed.
Bottom line. In a scenario when a schedule contains multiple rooms having different status routing rules, then the routing should follow the tighter more stringent rules so ALL key reviewers/approvers get the opportunity to review the schedule. Otherwise, key approvers are eliminated from the review altogether.