If player A did not get a confirmation from N regarding the non-existing card draw then I would be inclined to give the GL for DEC. Player As faulty understanding of the rules can not be taken into account as any “misunderstanding” casuing drawing of extra cards has the potential for cheating.

I can see that calling attention to the draw, thus making it harder to be actual cheating, could give some goodwill for player A, but I do not believe we have room in the IPG to downgrade just on that statement alone. He must wait for the opponent to confirm the draw step for us to have an out to downgrade.

Semantics: We don't actually downgrade DEC if the opponent confirms the illegal draw, but rather we skip DEC entirely and (generally) call it a GRV.

This situation as it stands however is definitely a DEC-GL. They've missed their trigger from the previous upkeep and doing so now is not remotely close to being “the first time it would affect the game in a visible fashion” - namely, player A having an additional card in his hand after the prior upkeep.

The only reason we might possibly resolve this as an actual Missed Trigger infraction would be if either player noticed and called attention to the ability before drawing cards. They didn't, so the first thing that really has gone wrong that we have to step in on is the card draw itself. There's no real out to do otherwise, in my opinion.

It is interesting how the reason for a GL for the penalty DEC is because of the “…potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.” This is clearly not the case, the player is explicitly informing his opponent what he is doing and why. Unfortunate that this situation is still a DEC-GL.