Dogzy: In your illustration, I'll assume that Player raised TO 325 total (100 BB plus 225 raise)..... Ultimately, IMO the INTENT of the bet is the most binding factor. If you as TD assess a situation and come to the conclusion that the player intends to just call 325 here, then it's legitimate to rule this a call. But IMO you have to base it on something.
Reason, because if we look strictly at the chip action, we have "multiple chips of mixed denomination", and if we make a judgement based solely on chip action we have a raise here. Reason, multiple chips of mixed denominations are governed by the 50% rule. Since the bet is 325 here (including a 225 raise), the 50% rule will kick in at 325 + (225 X .50) = 438. Since the player has advanced multiple chips of mixed denominations totalling in excess of 438 (he's tossed 525), if we have NOTHING ELSE to go by, then this is a raise, and he's obligated to make a minimum raise to a total of 325 + 225 = 550. The TDA Rule regarding "minimum raise" under 50% is based on the minimum raise under the specific circumstances, which is 225 here.
But you say "I can guess he wants to call.... ", so your judgement is based on something else, his demeanor, gestures, .... something that CLARIFIES his silent action. The best guideline would be a verbal declare of call. Because you don't have that, I think you have to presume a raise here unless the totality of other evidence leads you to conclude that the intent is to call. Your example also goes to the degree of "leniency" a particular TD has in applying strict rules. Like any judge or police officer, TD's range from quite strict to fairly tolerant depending on the issue involved. Some will be very strict on this but lenient on something else, and vice-versa. Personally this is an area where I would probably tend to be a littler stricter just because I want to maintain order in the betting/raising process, so I'd probably call this a raise more often than not, unless the totality of other gestures and utterances indicated a clear intent to call, but I fully understand how a TD who's a littler more lenient on this subject would assess the circumstances and decide it's obvious the guy just wanted to call and rule as such.