The Administrative Review Law in 2023 establishes administrative review as the main channel for resolving administrative disputes. By expanding prior administrative review case types and reforming the review system, the new law ensures effective front-end acceptance of numerous administrative disputes. However, its improvements to administrative review decisions are merely declaratory adjustments. In practice, prominent issues, including the overgeneralization of the application of affirmative decisions, the structural imbalance in the application of negative decisions, the institutional suspension of consensual decisions, and the symbolic exercise of authority in public-interest decisions, together lead to the contradiction of front-end expansion and back-end obstruction in administrative review, giving rise to a summary procedure oriented towards procedural closure. To break the dilemma, it is necessary to promote the leap of administrative review decisions from formal main channel to substantive main channel: in terms of goals, to upgrade from dispute acceptance to dispute termination, build an active review mechanism, strengthen the function of final resolution, and expand the governance extension channel; in terms of functions, to break the dilemma of the separation of supervision, relief, and dispute resolution, based on the efficiency advantage of hierarchical supervision, with the substantive justice of rights and interests protection as the foundation, and the governance effectiveness of dispute resolution as the key, to achieve functional integration and collaborative empowerment; in terms of methods, to innovate the traditional case correction model, achieve precise case-by-case rights relief through precise matching of decision types, and activate public interest decisions to promote case-by-case governance, case-by-case standardization, and system optimization. In terms of implementation paths, it is necessary to systematically improve the application rules: first, to standardize the application of affirmative decisions, including cutting the application scenarios of maintenance and dismissal decisions, clarifying the boundaries of substantive and procedural dismissal decisions, and strengthening the rigidity constraints of maintenance + correction decisions; second, to clarify the application of negative decisions, including building a system guarantee for the priority application of amendment decisions, strengthening the rigidity of performance decisions, and establishing a dual review standard for invalid decisions; third, to effectively activate the application of consensual decisions, including clarifying the priority application scope of consensual decisions, building a three-dimensional regulatory framework for risk control, and clarifying the logical reconstruction path of procedural coordination; fourth, to strengthen the application effect of public interest decisions, including building a rigid and flexible collaborative mechanism for normative document review and reconstructing the effectiveness of the opinion letter system. Through the systematic improvement of administrative review decisions, the substantive main channel function of case closure, matter settlement, and political harmony in administrative review can be realized, providing institutional support for the construction of a rule-of-law government.