My hypothesis has nothing to do with anything you’ve put down as a premise. Your statements are irrelevant, even if they were correct (which they are not). You have erected straw men, then knocked them down and declared victory.
I have a simple, a VERY simple hypothesis, one that should be EASILY falsified.
Barack Hussein Obama II is the only human being on the face of the entire Earth who has a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate with a racial designation of “African” on it.
The only assumptions made are the ones stated in the hypothesis.
Falsify it.
What if Barack Hussein Obama, II was the ONLY offspring of an indigenous African to be born in Hawaii in 1961?
I would think that your hypothesis is irrelevant to Article II, Section 1 eligibility since a father’s racial designation is not a requirement for being a natural born citizen.
There is no state or federal law which mandates that anyone use a birth certificate to establish thieir identity or citizenship. In fact under federal regulations, a U.S. Passport is primary evidence of citizenship and identity and a birth certificate is considered secondary evidence.
42 CFR 435.407 - Types of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/435.407