This is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. Only a broken computer algorithm wouldn't take bank specific history into account.
Although, I will say this. Credit issuers go through periods where the mandate of lending changes. So, timing is everything. While they may have given out 35k to everyone last year... it's very possible that the new mandate is to put new lending on hold insofar as high limits are concerned. Plus, since they lent out so much last year... it follows that they wouldn't do the same, year over year.
In fact, every bank goes through lull periods, when they're not handing out 20k limits like candy. These periods probably come faster, when after everyone has been feverishly reporting and then jumping on these credit card bandwagons so quickly, in the modern age. So, naturally, the funds dry up much more quickly, because the jig is up sooner... after being disseminated at a much faster rate than ever before.
Which is why you get reasons like, "insufficient history," despite having history with that bank. That's just a round about way to say, "we would have given you the loan, if we had the money... but, at the present time, we're just not authorized to lend the money."
So, even if a human could review it... and verify that your history with the bank is solid, and adds up... because of poor timing, and more than likely a bit of backroom accounting, you may end up with a similar unsatisfying result.
