Executive Summary: You can go ahead and sign your lease, but I'm expecting some bruises. lol
If I had a round of drinks riding on it, I think the smart money is remain at Step 3 with follow-up corrections before progression. My underlying assumption is that if we already had Step 3 in the clear, we can't be any worse off just for falling short of Step 4 if we've already substantially implemented the standards for it. The next 4 paragraphs is me agonizing and rationalizing that (possibly faulty) logic.
I realize the school has preliminary accreditation. Does anyone know if the school is on track for the provisional accreditation?
I know the school already has its list of improvement items. The final decision should be out by the end of June. Per LCME rules of procedure, the school is given one day advance notice and then the outcome is posted to the LCME website 24 hours later.
I've spent a lot of time speculating how we'll fair, but ultimately we'll be guessing until a decision is released sometime this month. Yes, per the chart, the site visit outcomes possible are: Step 4, Step 4 with follow-up citations, stay at Step 3 with follow-up citations (move to 4 when corrections documented), stay at Step 3 with a warning (confidential), stay at Step 3 on probation (public, requires a limited site visit to lift), and lastly:

. The reason we're not optimistic about a class size increase is that we would need (I believe) to both get Step 4, and have enough goodwill left over to boost enrollment. Just seems premature to me.. too many things needed to line up that were still being solidified.
We definitely generated citations (every school gets them), but the cutoff between citations and probation seems to be a value judgement (most school's probation disclosures are pretty oblique so it's hard to tell where the cutoff actually is, but there are exceptions (e.g.
McGill)). I've privately wondered if the mere fact that students point blank told the LCME site team that the student body would like to have federal loans as an option is sufficient to tip the scales for probation (once added to whatever run of the mill citations were generated). I say that because compared to a citation, probation has teeth: a 2 year (or else!) deadline. My impression from researching is that the 4 areas that are most likely to land a program on probation are a) Repeat violations on past citations b) Clinical site issues c) Student mistreatment d) Insufficient documentation of compliance. Financial options could fall under "c" IMO, so I've mentally braced myself for that possibility.
Another thing that makes it particularly difficult to call is that we (students) were pretty harsh in our ISA (independent student analysis) that was generated partway though 2019's M1 year and many of the things we documented no longer applied a full year later. And it seems that LCME frequently invokes that survey data in determining compliance/noncompliance. But on the other hand, in preparation for the site visit, it was emphasized to students that this should be viewed as an opportunity for us to improve and that we should be honest and helpful. When the survey team was here, we were very candid with them about which things had made satisfactory progress and which things still needed attention and I think they took us at our word. (And the site team in fact made a point of mentioning how much they appreciated that in their exit interview with Dean Silva). Buttttttttt, if they do substantially rely on our ISA, that action item list will be verrrrry long besides whatever things they identified on their visit. lol