Why would anything, even "boilerplate" language, be changed in the replacement citation?
There is something very "smelly" here, but apparently you have become accustomed to the odor.
Eveolution of administrative procedures. A diploma from my HS, issued today, looks a=nd reads different from a diploma issued when I graduated. Nothing bizzare about that.
There is something very "smelly" here, but apparently you have become accustomed to the odor.
Ummm, no. I am protecting my own credibility by not jumping to conclusions.
Normally you wouldn't get anything changed, you would just get a 'official reproduction' made from the artwork on file. I think this is the point Lehman is trying to make.
The original citation is probably stored as artwork, not just a copy. Old printing techniques did it this way. They would take a blank piece of parchment and shoot the old artwork onto that. It would likely include the original signature. If the artwork wasn't available then you just make a reproduction copy of a real 'old' version and sign it with the original signature with an autopen.
As an example there are plenty of reproduction copies of various US founding documents. These are made to high standards so the reproduction copies can be used for display. I have a reproduced US Constitution, suitable for framing, as an example.
Most people would want a historically accurate reproduction of medal citations, rather than just a rewritten copy with the same words. Someone knows exactly what the procedures and policies are, so it would not be too hard to get to the bottom of this.
You are right, something smells funny here. Especially since the actual citation words were rewritten, not the boilerplate. Someone was trying to beef up their historical record ... IMHO.