The information from there should supplement what Okubo says has always been the case for Oahu birth certificates.
On page 232 of the document you cited as being more credible than Okubo it says:
“With few exceptions, records are numbered in the State offices of vital statistics as they are received from the local offices. The assignment of the last digit in the number is not selective, and the systematic sample of even-numbered records may be assumed to be unbiased. Furthermore, because the records are almost always in geographic order before numbering, twice the sample count of births occurrring in the great majority of counties in table 3-1 in Section 3 is virtually the same as the corresponding figure based on all records.”
There’s another reason hospitals would not pre-assign numbers for birth certificates ... you might not have a live birth. In such a case, the baby would not receive a certificate of live birth, but a death certificate. There not going to assign numbers until they know the outcome of the birth.
I didn’t suggest that the document contradicted anything Okubo has supposedly confirmed for you. I said it was probably more authoritative than Okubo. Birthers accuse Okubo of lying when it suits them and then cite her statements as definitive when it suits them.
The document was published in 1961. Okubo says that there is no documentation of 1961 procedures or definitions of terms used back then. This document provides some clarification of general data collection in 1961.
Take it for what it is not what you assume I am implying.