It’s probably over-parsing, but listing the “Name of person” after already giving the name in item #1 seems like they’re starting a new list, that’s NOT just a continuation of the “verification” that was in #1.
If it was intended to be one solid sheet of “verification in lieu of a certified copy”, there wouldn’t be a need to reiterate who the verification was about. Switching to the “Name of person: Barack Hussein Obama II” format and starting that list with the name (which had already been stated) is a way to separate the first item from all the rest. A new list with a new format started on #2.
And it was never clarified exactly what that list is. With the exception of the “Name of person” to introduce the new list, the items in that list match those requested by Bennett to specifically be verified as FROM THE RECORD. The natural presumption is that these items - starting with “Name of person” even though that was never requested from the record - are all items as they appear on the record.
And the certifying statement at the bottom (which was put there by whoever initialed the document - an unidentified person whose initials can’t even be definitely known) says the record is the source for the verification.
CORRECTION: The certifying statement says that the INFORMATION in the record is the source for the verification. Though #1 refers to the existence of a birth certificate, the (anonymous) certifying statement allows that the “verification” could have come from a computer file, for instance, or from multiple documents such as affidavits.
Which may also be why they started a new list. Items 2-12 may be from the “record” and not from the “birth certificate” mentioned in item #1.