I work as a contractor for the government. The government bureaucracy LIVES for keeping up with forms and form revisions.
I can guarantee you there is a filing cabinet with a folder that has an original copy of that form, with a cover sheet with a list of the revisions and a list of approval signatures with dates.
Exactly. This supposedly final revision form lacks several important things. First of all it lacks of FORM NUMBER. . . and it lacks the date it was approved for use, citing just “Rev: August 2019.” Which is NOT the correct governmentese for Federal form dating. Those must use an abbreviation which would be “Rev.” not “Rev:” with a colon. The entire form looks like an ad hoc knock off provided by some low-level staffer, done on their word processor to provide verisimilitude when someone noticed the “Rev. 24MAY19” form was noticed to have the requirement to have first-hand information and a prohibition to be based on second-hand reporting. Someone said “Let’s get a new form quick” and literally did not have time to run it through all the hurdles and editing a government form must go through for approval. Somethings just did not get included, like, for instance that this is FORM 401, as the original shows. The newly revised (or created form) instead of what’s on the original in the footer says this:
IC IG CPD – ICWSP Disclosure Form
What, pray tell, is “IC IG CPD”? That “CPD” is nowhere to be found on the original form. On the original, where “Disclosure Form” is located here, it says instead “Form 401”. Say what? How do they order replacement forms from the government IC central supply? There are numerous “disclosure forms” in stock. The people running the IC supply would not have a clue which one to send. In addition, every government form which has more than a single page must number the succeeding pages. The original has a page number (page ii) in the header. This one does not have a page number anywhere on it, but we know it’s at least page 2. . . but no page number in either the header of the footer. That error would NEVER survive editorial review in the approval process. Ergo, it was never approved for use.