Mauritius Application for Reservation of Limited Liability Partnership Name (Form S19(1)-F LLP3)

Candidate selection

GOV-4995 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). Fresh re-scan of CATALOG.md's Executive Summary and the Mauritius ## Known Gaps & Opportunities sub-entry found GOV-4988's own disclosed backlog explicitly flagging LLP3 (name-reservation, Limited Liability Partnerships Act) as "the most likely next candidate" — the direct LLP-Act analogue of the LP1 (Limited Partnerships Act) schema authored that cycle. No open PR existed from a prior cycle (gh pr list --state open empty), so no handoff was needed before starting fresh.

This cycle re-fetched the live source directly rather than re-trusting the GOV-4988 cycle's own byte-count note, per this registry's standing practice of independently re-verifying before authoring.

Reaching the live source

https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/RESERVATION-OF-NAME-LLP_LLP3.pdf

• Independently re-fetched via plain unauthenticated curl (a -I header check, then a full download) — no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge, the same unauthenticated hosting pattern as every other CBRD form this registry has already modelled.
• HTTP 200, 68,215 bytes (matches the GOV-4988 cycle's own banked estimate exactly).
• sha256 of the retrieved bytes: 7c0d4109235345e9636bc8ce2f70063636a44b80e88d9279c23eb0f218852f43.
• 1 page, confirmed via pdfjs-dist's numPages.
• getTextContent() returned 176 positioned text items — a genuine text layer, with every printed label, checkbox-adjacent caption, and blank-line dot-leader run recovered cleanly (no AcroForm annotations, same as every sibling CBRD schema).
• A supplementary canvas render (node-canvas, 3x scale, cropped to two regions: the Category-checkbox/proposed-name-rows band, and the declaration/Note/"Tick where appropriate" band) independently confirmed box/checkbox layout is pixel-for-pixel identical in structure to the already-authored LP1 sibling's own confirmed layout: three bordered Category checkboxes, and three proposed-name rows each pairing a wide entry box with its own narrower office-use box. As on every prior CBRD render, glyph rendering failed via a Helvetica path-resolution warning (the known node-canvas font-substitution gap documented in this registry's gov-form-pdf-extraction practice note) — used for box/layout confirmation only, not text confirmation.

Authority attribution

The form's own header ("LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2016", "(Section 19 (1))", form code "S19(1)-F LLP3") and its hosting directly on the Corporate and Business Registration Department's own domain (companies.govmu.org/cbrd/, the same authority already attributed on every other CBRD schema in this registry) attribute authority to the Corporate and Business Registration Department (abbreviation CBRD).

Structural findings

1. Direct structural twin of the LP1 sibling, differing only in Act and section reference. Every printed label, box position, and layout element matches LP1's own confirmed structure field-for- field: applicant identification, a three-way Category checkbox, three proposed-name rows each with its own office-use box, a signature/date declaration line, a "Presented by" block, and the Department's own "FOR OFFICE USE" column. The only textual differences are "Limited Liability Partnership" for "Limited Partnership" throughout, "Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2016" for "Limited Partnerships Act 2011", "Section 19(1)" for "Section 16(1)", and form code "S19(1)-F LLP3" for "S16.F LP1".
2. Category checkbox is a verbatim match of LP1's own field. The canvas render confirmed three distinct bordered checkboxes beside "Domestic" / "Foreign" / "Global Business", identical in wording, position, and layout to the LP1 sibling's own category field — modelled with the same domestic / foreign / global_business enum for consistency.
3. Three proposed-name rows, each paired with its own small "(Office Use)" approval box. The canvas render confirmed each of the preferred-choice, first-alternative, and second-alternative rows prints a wide applicant-facing entry box immediately followed by a narrower Department-only box — labelled "(Office Use)" once beside the preferred-choice row, with the first- and second- alternative rows repeating the same narrow box unlabelled, an exact structural match of LP1's own confirmed finding. None of the three office-use boxes are modelled, consistent with this registry's standing convention of excluding Department-internal approval fields.
4. "Tick where appropriate." is an orphaned instruction with no adjacent checkbox. Printed as its own line beneath the Note section and above the "Presented by" block (text-layer offset x=86, y=182), a supplementary canvas crop of that band confirmed no checkbox, box, or other markable control appears anywhere near it — the identical orphaned template artifact already disclosed on the LP1 sibling, not modelled as a field.
5. Vertical sidebar "Application" watermark text. The extracted text stream includes the fragment "Iaa" (y=717, x=352, a rendering artifact near the header) and a vertically-split "A" / "pplicat" / "ion" running down the left margin at x=50 — the same decorative sidebar label reading "Application" top-to-bottom already seen on the LP1 sibling and other CBRD forms. Not modelled.
6. No "director"-for-"partner" boilerplate defect found. Checked the full extracted text stream for the recurring "director" boilerplate substitution bug seen on several other CBRD companion schemas; none was found — the form consistently uses "applicant" throughout, since no partnership yet exists at the name-reservation stage, the same as the LP1 sibling's own finding.

Requiredness and scoping decisions

Mirrors the LP1 sibling's own decisions field-for-field, since the two forms are structural twins:

• applicantFullName, applicantPostalAddress: required — the form provides no alternative path to identify the applicant.
• category: required, following LP1's own precedent for this identical checkbox.
• proposedNamePreferredChoice: required — a name-reservation application is meaningless without at least one requested name.
• proposedNameFirstAlternative, proposedNameSecondAlternative: optional — the form's own top-of-page note treats alternates as a fallback, not a requirement ("If there are more names to be reserved, please attach a separate sheet...").
• signatureOfApplicant, declarationDate: required — standard declaration block.
• presentedByName, presentedByAddress: required, following this registry's standing "Presented by" convention.
• presentedByTelephone: optional — no asterisk or other mandatory marking, matching the LP1 sibling's own equivalent field.

Validation

• node tools/validate.mjs: pass.
• node tools/validate-ajv.mjs: pass (all schemas, including this one).
• Ephemeral conformance check (not committed): 3 valid scenarios (preferred-choice-only; preferred plus both alternatives; preferred plus telephone supplied) and 8 required-field-omission mutations (one per required field) all rejected as expected, plus 1 unknown-field-rejection and 1 invalid-enum-value rejection (category: "nonexistent") — 13 checks total, all passing.
• npm run build-index (in tools/govschema-client/): registry index rebuilt, 690 → 691 documents.

Scope and disclosed backlog

Mauritius's Business Formation vertical gains a sixteenth schema. Mauritius remains 4 of 6 verticals open. The Annual Return (LP3) and the Foundation change-of-name form both remain confirmed-live, unauthored backlog for a future cycle — the reappeared-but-unverified consent-of-manager candidate and the confirmed-dead NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-MANAGER_LLP6.pdf link remain unresolved as well.