I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation." What is the point of that? Has that ever been done between a U.S. Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge of any country? If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?
Sometimes it happens early on so the GLs can exchange lists of member lodges, then get them all published in next year's List of Lodges Masonic. I remember that happening when California recognition happened. It took a bit under two years for the paperwork exchange to happen. By then we already had a MWPHGLofCA lodge as a tenant in our building so our visit consisted of marching down the hall to the next room. Very bizarre how different issues go through at different rates. We'd gone straight to our mutual GLs when the PH lodge leased their building and wanted to be a tenant, so it went through in a few months after the recognition vote. Yet neither of us was on the other's list to visit until a slower paperwork process settled.
One issue with making the change in a list of steps is the farther along the process you get, the more Brothers consider the issue resolved and lose interest. This leads to assorted restrictions that no one ever bothers to resolve.
California - No cross affiliation. Apparently because MWPHGLofCA is a single affiliation jurisdiction and they asked for it. Unfortunately that detail got copied to every invitation for recognition GLofCA has sent.
Texas. Extra form to be processed by both GrSec offices and voted on by both lodges before a member gets preapproved to visit.
These random seeming restrictions are why I favor just plain "full and traditional" recognition without details. Any details result in a type of second class citizenship that runs in both directions. To me it's unbecoming. But if the step by step process happens, may as well celebrate at each step and keep submitting the paperwork for the next step.
I should react to this vote - Happy dance!