The very fact that you are able to state, unequivocally (and correctly) that I have mis-stated the issue shows, I think, that my hed is, at least, unambiguous. I had forgotten exactly which was the correct fact.
So, it should have been
Starr requested report's delay ,
which is just as unambiguous and, I have to say, takes less room than your contribution.

FWIW, I completely agree with you that your hed would arouse interest in those who would be interested. But IMAO, that isn't what we were trying to do - we jes wanna hed that gives specific information without misunderstanding.

- and I didn't for a moment think you were being faceitious, my dear fellow.