Note: The sponsor team decided to mitigate this QA finding that was outside of the winning QA report. This downgraded issue from the same warden has been included in this report for completeness. 
In the edge of the contract pausing and unpausing, the 90-day minimal appeal period can be violated. Users might have less than 90 days to finish appeals and lose their refunds.
Based on readme, the contract needs to enforce:
The minimum appeal time / burnRoundMinimumDuration is implemented in lockAndBurn() by checking block.timestamp - lastBurnTimestamp >= burnRoundMinimumDuration. 
However, if the contract has been paused during the current round, block.timestamp - lastBurnTimestamp will also include the duration of the pause, when no release() can be issued and the appeal process cannot be finalized. 
Suppose the contract was paused for 2-hours, during which release() is locked. When the contract is unpaused, block.timestamp crosses the burnRoundMinimumDuration. Due to lockAndBurn() being permissionless, anyone might call lockAndBurn() which effectively burns all slashed amount from currentSlashRound-1 and starts a new round. Any pending released refunds from currentSlashRound-1 will be burned.
https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-03-gitcoin/blob/6529b351cd72a858541f60c52f0e5ad0fb6f1b16/id-staking-v2/contracts/IdentityStaking.sol#L509-L510
In the case above, if the user is slashed at the end of a previous round (currentSlashRound - 1), they will have (90 day - 2 hour) appeal time to receive refunds. The longer the contract is on pause, the less appeal time. 
Timing
Alex the Entreprenerd (judge) commented:
Note: For full discussion, see here.
Gitcoin mitigated:
 Status: Mitigation confirmed. Full details in reports from oakcobalt, Stormy and 0xDING99YA.
For this audit, 1 report was submitted by wardens detailing gas optimizations. The report highlighted below by oakcobalt received the top score from the judge.
