It’s been discussed ad infinitum, “matching” is meaningless.
Here’s the short version: you present item “a” which matches my item “a”. You are unaware of my item “b”, which amends item “a”
So you're supposing that there exists for purposes of making a verification two versions of a record, an original and an amended version, and that the custodian is stating information "matches" because he's comparing what's proffered to the original and disregarding the amendment(s)? If so, then "true and complete copy" (or whatever language you prefer) doesn't solve the problem as the custodian could equally disregard the amendment and make the comparison only as against that same original.
What point you're trying to make is lost here.