One-stop shop, multiple realities: an investigation at the heart of administrative absurdity

Between endless lines and forms demanding proof of their own existence, users lose themselves in a very real theater of the absurd.
Our report brings to light a system where every solution turns into an obstacle, to the point of making logic optional.

As soon as the doors open, the line spills out into the street. To get a ticket, you first have to sign up on the waiting list… which is only available after you’ve taken a ticket. The kiosk, “temporarily unavailable,” has been replaced by an attendant who, in order to serve you, asks for the number of the unavailable kiosk. Inside, a diagram with arrows indicates “mandatory traffic flow” in two opposite directions, depending on whether you read it left to right or in the window’s reflection.

Online, same scene, different set. The digital portal demands a scanned copy of a document issued only at the counter, where in turn proof of an online submission is required. “They’re asking me for proof that I exist, signed by me, countersigned by a piece of evidence I don’t have,” sighs Élodie M., a user, waving a file certified as true to itself. Appointments are booked with a code that is sent… during the first appointment. Without a code, you have to call, but the switchboard directs you to the website “to save time.”

At counter C (now called B bis, “for simplification”), a sign states that a complete file is admissible only if it is missing item 4, to be provided after validation. The original of the certified copy must be “an original copy,” stamped in blue but signed in black, unless the black ink is blue “in the spirit of the regulations.” An internal memo requires the name in uppercase lowercase, “to preserve legibility.” Anyone who reads too literally is asked to “take a step back.”

Asked for comment, management assures that a “unified pathway” is in progress. “We are simplifying complexity, not reality,” a manager declares, unblinking. At the exit, which you reach by going back through the closed entrance “to improve flow,” a receipt is issued attesting that the process was attempted. It does not constitute proof, but it allows you to prove that you tried to obtain proof. And tomorrow, the poster promises, everything will be better: a new procedure is coming… to make it easier to access the previous one.