 Based on the provided DECLARE declarative process model constraints, here are several potential anomalies and redundancies:

1. **Redundant Constraints:**
   - The `Existence` constraint for all activities is redundant because the `Exactly 1` constraint already specifies that each activity must occur exactly once, which implicitly means they must exist.
   - Many `Responded Existence` constraints are duplicated in other forms like `Response`, `Precedence`, or `Succession`. For instance, ('Request Payment', 'Payment Handled') appears in multiple constraint types.
   - The `Co-Existence` constraints seem to be fully covered by the `Responded Existence` and `Exactly 1` constraints. If an activity occurs exactly once and its occurrence implies another activity must also occur, they are inherently co-existent.

2. **Conflicting Constraints:**
   - The `Initialization` constraint specifies that 'Declaration SUBMITTED by EMPLOYEE' should be the first activity. However, this might conflict with some interpretations of `Response`, `Precedence`, or `Succession` constraints if they imply a different starting point. Although in this specific model it seems consistent, its important to ensure no other activities can logically precede 'Declaration SUBMITTED by EMPLOYEE'.
   - The `Absence` constraint lists many activities that are explicitly forbidden. While this is not an anomaly per se, it should be ensured that none of these activities appear in any part of the process flow, directly or indirectly implied.

3. **Potential Logical Inconsistencies:**
   - The combination of `Exactly 1`, `Succession`, and `Alternate Succession` constraints might create rigid sequences where some flexibility could be intended. For instance, if 'Request Payment' must directly precede 'Payment Handled', there is no room for any intermediate steps, which might not align with practical workflows.
   - The model heavily relies on the `Exactly 1` constraint, implying a very strict and linear process flow without allowance for iterations or variations. This rigidity could be an anomaly if the real-world process requires more flexibility.

4. **Redundant Succession Types:**
   - The `Succession`, `Alternate Succession`, and `Chain Succession` constraints include overlapping pairs, such as ('Request Payment', 'Payment Handled'). This redundancy suggests that the model might be over-specified in some areas.

5. **Missing Constraints:**
   - While many activities are explicitly managed, there is no mention of handling exceptional cases or conditional branches (except through `Absence`). Real-world processes often have exceptions and error-handling mechanisms that may not be adequately represented here.

To resolve these anomalies, the model should:
1. Remove redundant constraints to simplify the model without losing its integrity.
2. Ensure no logical inconsistencies exist between different constraint types.
3. Consider whether the process flow should allow for more flexibility or iterative steps if applicable.
4. Review and possibly consolidate succession-related constraints to avoid overlaps.
5. Include provisions for handling exceptions and conditional paths if required by the real-world process.