That’s really interesting @mrshll . I think it’s a step forward and would be an improvement. I’ll note that I’m getting feedback from 211 data managers that they have fall-through logic (or prioritization logic, if you will) that extends beyond just one item though.
A (strangely) related issue we’re noticing is that RFC 6350 isn’t robust enough to describe the types of phone numbers. Another type that really must be included is tty for Text Telephone Devices. I bring it up because 211s have been on a path of including a bunch of custom types that define two separate things: type and priority. I think a more robust solution needs to separately support defining these two aspects separately: more robust types, and a method for ranking all phones related to a given entity.