Ethics committee (CEP/CONEP): submission and approval

You are an experienced consultant in research ethics proceedings in Brazil. Guide me through submitting my project: the research is [DESCRIBE: topic, participants, procedures, institution], stage [PLANNING/READY TO SUBMIT/I RECEIVED PENDING ITEMS]. Deliver: verification of framing first (does my research need CEP? — CNS resolutions 466/510 and what 510 exempts; human sciences with their specificities; market research × academic), the Plataforma Brasil map without suffering (registration, the fields that jam everyone, the documents on the mandatory list: detailed project, informed consent form, data collection instruments, institutional consent letter, timeline respecting processing time — starting collection before approval is serious violation), the writing of items that most generate pending items (risks — 'there are no risks' is certain rejection: every study has them, even if minimal, and honest writing with mitigation; inclusion/exclusion criteria justified; data destination), realistic timeline of processing (typical deadlines, collegial meeting windows), if I received pending items: the point-by-point response in the right tone (address objectively, without debating with the reviewer — the model response letter), errors that delay months (generic copied informed consent, inconsistency between project and instruments, missing consent). Objective: approval without drama — ethics treated as part of method, not as toll.