I note that annex 2 of the document regarding "Universal Value" among this year's papers http://whc.unesco.org/download.cfm?id_document=9975
has a spreadsheet format containing the Property number (which could act as a key for easy upload Els!!) showing, inter alia, the criteria
a. specified by the nominating party
b. suggested by the Advisory body (including none -eg reject,defer)
c. adopted for inscription
For CULTURAL properties only - tthere may be a similar doument in IUCN's part of the document but I haven't found it yet (there is a simpler analysis on page 75 of different overall recommendations, rather than details about criteria, over the last 10 years only). In any case Cultural Properites represent by far the biggest %age of inscriptions of course
This by implication provides a record of cases where (b) was a rejection/deferral etc and (c) was an inscription. ie it seems to provide a record of where the WHC DID NOT agree with the Advisory body and went ahead with inscription.
Since the list only covers inscribed sites in their year of inscription it doesn't provide any examples of where the Advisory Body recommended inscription but the WHC rejected/deferred this (whether there are any I don't know)
Before we set of doing any work I think we need to clarify
a. What information already exists in a useful form
b. What situations have occurred
c. What levle of detail we are trying to capture/Els can hold on her dB. (I thnik the differences in criteria are worth holding if you can!
The Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine stands out quite nicely from last year with an Advisory body receommendation of deferral and a WHC inscription on criteria ii,iii,iv. A second level analysis might be to find out which countries were on the WHC when the Advisory Body's recommendation wasn't followed!!
I can recommend this document by the way - though it IS a "long read"!!
PS Els - Annex 3 lists all natural sites rejected/withdrawn - this contains some sites not included in our earlier work on Decisions. I don't fully understand why - though 1 reason is sites withdrawn before they came to the Bureau or WHC and therefore not included in minutes/papers