Defining, classifying, and setting regulations for all possible problems is the goal of an ideal bureaucracy, but the conclusion actually hinges on them never obtaining that goal; it’s about always having new problems to solve. (A) is saying that they will obtain that goal.

It isn’t necessary that all problems solved by an ideal bureaucracy have come from complaints. It’s fine if the bureaucracy anticipates and solves some without any complaint about it.

If negated, then an ideal bureaucracy will not always have a stream of complaints that reveal problems, so they will not be ceaselessly expanding regulations. The argument is ruined.

We don’t need a biconditional between these things. The argument is not concerned with what is sufficient or necessary to achieve their goal—it is concluding a side-effect of pursuing that goal.

Also, we cannot invoke “system of regulations is always expanding” as a condition, because it is the thing we are trying to prove.

Too strong. It isn’t necessary that each and every complaint reveal a problem, it’s only necessary that the complaints that do reveal a problem are frequent enough that regulations are ever-expanding.