This is kind of a trick question. I agree with @CodeGnome that PM controls is a non zero task. It requires the project to stop or slow down turning wrenches in order to participate in the control process. As such, tempo slows so overall time should increase.
However, "slow progress" implies an unfavorable variance from plan when in fact reporting activities for those controls should be part of the plan such that your planning values include that effort. Therefore, assuming a perfectly working process, your progress does not "slow" because it was built in the plan.
This also has a pay now or pay later kind of dynamic. Measuring progress might be a non zero activity; however, good controls mean early visibility on variances, which means early mitigation / course correction, which means better time results.
Now to get more real, there are thousands of random variables at play on a complex project. I would challenge anyone to credibly point at "controls" as a primary or leading driver to an unfavorable time variance. A lot of our results are simply random.