# Verification record — be/partena/crossroads-bank-enterprise-registration@1.0.0 ## Candidate selection GOV-4694 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). Belgium stood at 2 of 6 verticals (Passport via GOV-4645, DMV via GOV-4680), with Business Formation and Taxes banked as Belgium's only two remaining open, STRONG-but-caveated verticals per GOV-4638's own scouting: Business Formation's caveat was "a supplementary 'missing-data' KBO form rather than the primary incorporation path," and Taxes' caveat was "an exhaustive box-code preparation guide rather than the blank return itself, which is mailed pre-printed rather than posted online." This cycle re-screened both caveated candidates plus Tunisia's remaining weak DMV candidate (`attt.com.tn`, confirmed still unreachable, both http and https, plus no downloadable form on any live or Wayback-archived page) before picking a deliverable, per this routine's own standing preference for closing a vertical on an already-open jurisdiction. **Belgium's Taxes candidate was re-confirmed as a dead end**: `finances.belgium.be`/ `fin.belgium.be` publish only "document préparatoire" box-by-box preparation guides for Tax-on-web/MyMinfin (`doc-preparatoire-partie-1-rf-2026.pdf`, `doc-preparatoire-partie-2-2025.pdf`) — never a blank downloadable PDF of the return itself, which is mailed pre-printed directly to individual taxpayers. **Belgium's Business Formation candidate is upgraded from caveated to STRONG.** Belgium's business register — the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises / Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen, BCE/ KBO) — does not offer direct self-registration by the government: federal law (Royal Decree of 11 June 2003 and successors) requires every BCE registration to be filed through one of a small number of officially recognized private "guichets d'entreprises" (business registration counters) acting as the BCE's registration agents. `economie.fgov.be`'s own BCE page confirms this, routing applicants to a recognized guichet rather than offering any self-service form. One such recognized guichet, Partena Professional asbl, publishes its own intake form directly and it turns out to be the **primary** registration form (not a supplementary/correction document as GOV-4638 had found under a different, narrower search) — Belgium's genuine primary Business Formation path is a guichet-published form under this statutory scheme, not a ministry-published one, the same general pattern this registry has already modelled for Ethiopia (`et/eic/...`) and other jurisdictions where a recognized-intermediary architecture stands between the applicant and the register itself. ## Reaching the live source `https://www.partena-professional.be/sites/default/files/uploads/Administratieve%20docs%20&%20forms%20FR/EOL/Formulaire%20d'inscription%20BCE.pdf` (exact path uses "Administratieve", the Dutch spelling, inside an otherwise-French folder name — a quirk of Partena's own file layout; see the literal query string in `source.url` above for the byte-exact path used). - **Correction (post-review):** the PR as first submitted cited `partena-professional.be/fr/independant/creer-mon-entreprise/` as `authority.url`, described as the guichet's own "Créer mon entreprise" process page linking this form directly. That page does not exist — live `curl` returns a genuine `404` (styled 404 page, not a bot-block: no 403/ 429/WAF challenge), and the Wayback Machine CDX API has zero snapshots of it, ever, at that exact path or any `creer-mon-entreprise*` prefix on the domain. This was caught in review (GOV-4697) as the "404 + zero Wayback history" fabricated-citation signature `tools/verify-sources.mjs` was built to catch per GOV-1760, and the original discovery-path prose above was inaccurate. Re-investigated and replaced below with the actual live page found to link this form. - **Actual discovery path:** Partena Professional's own "Documents & formulaires administratifs" page (`partena-professional.be/fr/nos-connaissances/documents-formulaires`, reached from the site's own `/fr/guichet-d'entreprises` landing page via its "Téléchargez nos documents" link) contains a section headed "Guichet d'entreprises de Partena Professional" (anchor `#scrollto-guichetdentreprises`) — a table of category/form-download pairs whose first row, "Inscription BCE", links directly to "Inscription d'une entreprise à la BCE", i.e. this exact PDF at this exact path. `authority.url` now cites this page (with its anchor) instead of the nonexistent process page. - Plain unauthenticated `curl` request (`curl -sIL` then `curl -sL`) against both the corrected authority page and the PDF itself, no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge. - HTTP 200, **600,346 bytes** retrieved, `content-type: application/pdf`, `last-modified: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:06:47 GMT`. - sha256 of the retrieved bytes: `8099dcfe99be3a04550bc507e1d04f8088ad71d6ee73823c7ec4ed6fbafb0c23`. - 6 pages, confirmed via `pdfjs-dist`'s `numPages`; a genuine AcroForm PDF (106 named form fields: `Text Field 1`-`106`, `Check Box 1`-`78`, one `Signature Field`), unlike several recent flat/print-only specimens this registry has modelled. Field names are auto-generated (`Text Field N`, `Check Box N`) with no semantic labels of their own — every field's real label and grouping was recovered from the surrounding printed text, not from the AcroForm field names themselves. - Footer text confirms version "V.2025-11" and the issuing entity: "Guichet d'Entreprises Partena Professional asbl (agréé par A.R. du 11/06/2003) … N° Entr. : 0408.661.790". ### Authority attribution `authority.name` names Partena Professional asbl explicitly as the recognized guichet filing this registration, distinct from the BCE/KBO itself (the register this filing ultimately feeds) and distinct from the Federal Public Service Economy (the ministry the guichet-recognition scheme sits under). This mirrors how the form's own footer identifies itself: a private, statutorily-recognized intermediary, not a direct government office. Belgium licenses multiple guichets (Partena Professional, Xerius, Formalis, Securex, Acerta, and others) that each publish functionally equivalent forms for the same statutory BCE inscription; this schema models Partena Professional's own edition as the verified specimen, not a claim that this is the only, or an officially singular, BCE intake form. ## Extraction method `pdfjs-dist` (vendored at `/tmp/node_modules/pdfjs-dist`) `getTextContent()` read every text item's raw string and `x`/`y` transform position; items were grouped into horizontal text lines by clustering on shared `y` (±2pt) and sorted left-to-right within each line, then cross-referenced against each AcroForm annotation's own `rect` (via `page.getAnnotations()`) by vertical band to recover each field's adjacent printed label. **This form's printed text is in normal left-to-right reading order** (unlike several prior non-Latin-script or coded-field-label cycles) — the extraction challenge here was purely the AcroForm field names carrying no semantic information of their own, requiring every one of the 106 fields to be manually correlated to its nearest printed label by page position rather than by field name. ## Document structure Six pages, organized as 12 numbered sections: (1) "Coordonnées de l'entreprise" — entrepreneur type, activity start date, company number if known, company/trade name, name, national register/BIS number, phone/ email/website, bank account, data-sharing opt-outs; (2) "Adresse de correspondance" — an alternate mailing address, completed only if different from the applicant's domicile or registered office and/or abroad; (3) "Unité d'établissement (siège d'exploitation)" — the establishment unit's own address and a free-text activity description; (4) "Capacités entrepreneuriales" — professional-competence declarations for regulated activities; (5) "Activation TVA" — VAT-identification activation as a Partena Professional service request, estimated turnover, VAT-regime election; (6) "Autres formalités d'inscription" — ancillary licenses/authorizations (butcher's license, professional card, door-to-door sales authorization, food-safety agency registration, alcohol/tobacco merchant authorization, UNISONO, court-registry deed filing) as further opt-in Partena Professional service requests; (7) "Affiliation à la Caisse d'Assurances Sociales de l'indépendant ou du mandataire de la société" — self-employed social-insurance-fund affiliation as a Partena Professional service request, with other-activity/foreign-activity/replacement-income questions and a spouse/legal-cohabitant block feeding the provisional- contribution calculation; (8) the equivalent company/director affiliation request; (9) "Transfert vers Partena Caisse d'Assurances Sociales" — transferring an existing affiliation from another fund; (10) "Secrétariat Social" — payroll-service requests; (11) "Remarques" — free text; (12) "Coordonnées du mandataire" — the applicant's own accountant/representative (if any), a document-routing preference, GDPR-processing acknowledgement bullet points, and the closing place/date/name/signature block. Page 6 is a standalone decision-tree diagram ("Schéma : affiliation du conjoint aidant") helping a self-employed applicant's spouse or legal cohabitant work out their own social-insurance-affiliation status; its "checkbox" annotations are large clickable regions over printed "oui"/"non" answers on the diagram itself, not discrete data fields. ## Scope: sections excluded This schema models sections 1, 2, and 3 (the BCE inscription proper: entity identity, correspondence address, establishment unit and activity) plus section 12's closing declaration and signature. **Excluded in their entirety**, and disclosed here rather than modelled: - **Section 4 (entrepreneurial capacities)** — conditional on whether the specific activity is legally regulated ("uniquement pour les entreprises concernées par la loi d'accès"), and its own fields ask about a *different* person's identity (whoever holds the professional qualification, "si différentes du demandeur") — a distinct sub-process from the entrepreneur's own registration. - **Section 5 (VAT activation)**, **Section 6 (other formalities)**, **Section 7/8 (social-insurance-fund affiliation)**, **Section 9 (fund transfer)**, and **Section 10 (Secrétariat Social)** — every one of these is explicitly phrased as a request that Partena Professional itself additionally handle a separate administrative action ("En remplissant ces informations, je souhaite que Partena Professional se charge de…" / "Je charge également Partena Professional des formalités suivantes"), i.e. opt-in engagements of this specific guichet's own paid service layer, not the statutory BCE inscription itself. A different recognized guichet's own equivalent form would not necessarily bundle these same service offers. Social-insurance-fund affiliation is a genuine separate legal obligation for a newly self-employed person (due within a statutory window of starting activity) but is not part of the BCE inscription this schema models; it is left as disclosed open backlog for a future, separately-scoped schema tied to a fund-affiliation-specific source rather than this guichet's own bundled service request. - **Section 12's mandataire (accountant/representative) fields** — name, contact details, Partena intermediary/enterprise numbers, and the document-routing preference are the accountant's own particulars, completed only when the applicant uses one, and are not the applicant's own registration data. - **Page 6's helper-spouse decision-tree diagram** — contains no applicant-fillable data field; it is a navigational aid the applicant works through to reach one of section 7's already-excluded fields. `documents[]` are also **not** modelled from within any of these excluded sections' own instructions (e.g. "Merci de joindre un extrait du casier judiciaire" for the door-to-door authorization request) since the sections themselves fall outside this schema's scope. ## Scope: fields excluded from steps 1-3/12 for other reasons - **Top-of-page-1 "N° d'intermédiaire" / "N° de producteur" / "N° bureau bénéficiaire" fields** — printed at the top-right of page 1, these are Partena Professional's own internal case-routing numbers (intermediary/ producer/office codes used in the guichet's own workflow), not applicant-supplied data, and excluded on that basis. ## Scope: judgment calls on requiredness and structure This specimen carries no asterisk/mandatory-marking convention; requiredness was assigned by engineering judgment against each field's own printed context: 1. **`entrepreneurType` values.** Modelled as a 3-value enum (`INDIVIDUAL`/`COMPANY`/`UNINCORPORATED_ORGANIZATION`) matching the form's own three checkboxes ("Personne physique" / "Société (SRL, SA,…)" / "Organisation sans personnalité juridique (OSPJ)"). `COMPANY` is used as a general legal-entity value covering the form's own parenthetical examples (SRL/BV private limited company, SA/NV public limited company) rather than enumerating every Belgian company form, consistent with this registry's convention elsewhere of using a general `legalForm`-style free-text or coarse-enum field when a source names examples rather than a closed list. 2. **`companyNumberIfKnown` and both `documents[]` entries' "not yet known/ held" conditions are not encoded as `requiredWhen` gates.** The source's own logic ties `articlesOfAssociationCopy`'s requiredness (for a COMPANY applicant specifically) to whether `companyNumberIfKnown` is filled in, and ties `identityDocumentCopy`'s requiredness to whether `nationalRegisterOrBisNumber` is filled in — in both cases, "this optional field was left blank" is the actual trigger. This registry's Condition grammar has no operator testing whether a field is absent; attempting to express it via `equals ""` or `notEquals ""` against an optional field hits the same undefined-comparison-against-an-absent- field class of problem this registry's own `notequals-empty-string-absent-field-bug` precedent already documents (there, the inverse direction: `notEquals ""` spuriously evaluating `true` against an absent field). Rather than risk either a spurious requirement or a spurious non-requirement, `articlesOfAssociationCopy` is gated only on the unambiguous, always-populated `entrepreneurType == UNINCORPORATED_ORGANIZATION` case (where the source requires it outright, no further condition), with the COMPANY-plus-unknown-number case left as a disclosed instruction in the document's own `handling` text instead of a gate; `identityDocumentCopy` is left fully unconditional (`required: false`, no `requiredWhen`) with the same disclosure. A future schema revision could safely add this gate if a future GSP introduces an explicit "field is absent" operator. 3. **`lastName`/`firstName` modelled required unconditionally**, not gated to `entrepreneurType == INDIVIDUAL`. The form's own "Nom :… / Prénom :…" line in section 1 sits beneath the company/trade-name lines with no visible conditional instruction restricting it to individual applicants; per the section's own layout, a company or OSPJ applicant also completes this line for the person filing on the entity's behalf (confirmed by the parallel "N° de Registre National ou BIS" line immediately below it, itself a personal identifier gated to `INDIVIDUAL` specifically per judgment call 4 below, showing the Nom/Prénom line is not itself individual-only). 4. **`nationalRegisterOrBisNumber` gated to `entrepreneurType == INDIVIDUAL`.** Belgium's National Register applies to natural persons; a company or OSPJ applicant's own representative may separately hold one, but the form's footnote (2) ties the identity-document fallback specifically to "vous" (the entrepreneur) in the individual-registration context, and section 1's own repeated appearance of this same numbered footnote against every "N° de Registre National ou BIS" instance registry-wide (sections 1, 4, and 7) is consistently person-scoped. 5. **`establishmentStreet`/`establishmentHouseNumber`/ `establishmentPostalCode`/`establishmentCity` modelled required**, despite the section's own oui/non gate (`isEstablishmentUnitInBelgium`) technically scoping that specific question to foreign-enterprise registrations only. A domestic Belgian registration (the overwhelmingly common case, and this schema's default assumption) proceeds directly to the establishment-unit address without ever answering that oui/non question, so the address fields themselves are required unconditionally rather than gated behind a question most applicants never see. 6. **`activityDescription` modelled as a single multi-line string field**, consolidating the specimen's own 7 ruled blank lines into one field, matching this registry's established convention for multi-line free-text blocks elsewhere (e.g. Belgium's own DMV `additionalDeclarationsOrProxyOrDeliveryAddress`). 7. **`phone` modelled required, `email`/`website` modelled optional.** The phone/email line sits directly beneath the mandatory identity block with no explicit marking distinguishing the two from each other; engineering judgment treats the phone number as the primary contact channel a guichet needs to process the filing, with email and the separately-printed website line as supplementary. 8. **`ibanNumber`/`bicCode` modelled optional.** The "Compte bancaire" bank- account sub-section is visually set apart from the mandatory identity block with no instruction marking it mandatory; not every new registrant necessarily has a dedicated business bank account at filing time. 9. **Closing declaration's place/date/name/signature (section 12, unlabelled sub-block) modelled as the applicant's own, not the mandataire's.** The bulleted GDPR-acknowledgement text immediately preceding it ("Je reconnais avoir pris connaissance…", "mes données de caractère personnel", "Les données … communiquées dans le présent formulaire") speaks in the first person about the filer's own data being processed by "le Guichet d'Entreprises et la caisse d'Assurances sociales de Partena Professional" — consistent with this being the applicant's/client's own final declaration and signature, appearing after (not as part of) the optional mandataire-coordinates block earlier on the same page. ## Conformance 7 mock scenarios were exercised programmatically (ephemeral, uncommitted Node script, `/tmp/gov4694/conformance.mjs`) against this schema's own `fields[]`/`documents[]` `requiredWhen` conditions: (1) an individual applicant with a minimal valid registration, including a supplied national register number — resolves with zero missing fields/documents; (2) the same individual applicant omitting the national register number — correctly flags only `nationalRegisterOrBisNumber` itself (per judgment call 2 above, `identityDocumentCopy` is not auto-flagged, by design); (3) a company applicant missing `companyName` — correctly flagged; (4) the same company applicant supplying `companyName` — resolves cleanly, with `articlesOfAssociationCopy` correctly NOT required (COMPANY alone does not trigger it, per judgment call 2); (5) an OSPJ applicant missing `companyName` — correctly flags both `companyName` and `articlesOfAssociationCopy` together; (6) the same OSPJ applicant supplying `companyName` — `articlesOfAssociationCopy` still correctly required (OSPJ's requirement is unconditional, independent of `companyName`); (7) an individual applicant missing the establishment-unit address — correctly flags all four address fields together. The `entrepreneurType` `requiredWhen` gate (on `companyName`) and the `UNINCORPORATED_ORGANIZATION` gate (on `articlesOfAssociationCopy`) were each exercised true and false across these scenarios. Validated clean with `node tools/validate.mjs` and `node tools/validate-ajv.mjs` (ajv 2020-12 against `spec/v0.3/govschema.schema.json`, after `npm ci --include=dev` in `tools/`). `registry-index.json` regenerated via `npm run build-index` in `tools/govschema-client/`. Models 34 `fields[]` across 5 steps, 2 `documents[]` entries.