# Verification record — mu/cbrd/limited-partnership-change-of-name@1.0.0 ## Candidate selection GOV-4925 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). The prior five CBRD Mauritius Business Formation cycles (GOV-4897/4904/4911/4918) authored LLP1, the Foundation registration form, LLP2 Consent of Partner, and the LP Consent of General Partner, disclosing a shrinking backlog of confirmed- live companion/notice forms on each cycle's own VERIFICATION.md. The most recent disclosure (GOV-4918) left five items open: LLP4 (Notice of Change in Registered Office), LLP5 (Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Liability Partnership), LLP8 (Application for removal of Limited Liability Partnership from Register), LP5 (Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Partnership), and LP7 (Notice of Change in Registered Particulars) — with LP5 and LP7 each independently byte-verified live twice already (GOV-4911, GOV-4918), the strongest-verified pair in the backlog. This cycle re-fetched CBRD's own downloadable-forms listing (`https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/downloadable-forms/`, HTTP 200) fresh rather than trusting the banked list, and confirmed all five disclosed items are still linked live. It also surfaced forms not previously disclosed on any prior cycle's VERIFICATION.md, expanding the known backlog (see "Scope and disclosed backlog" below) — a reminder that the banked list itself was never a complete inventory of the listing page, only of items a prior cycle happened to name. LP5 ("Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Partnership") was picked over its four siblings because it is the more thoroughly re-verified of the two double-confirmed items (LP5, LP7), and per this registry's own "one deliverable per PR" convention is well-scoped as its own schema. ## Reaching the live source `https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-NAME-OF-A-LIMITED-PARTNERSHIP_LP5.pdf` - Plain unauthenticated `curl`, no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge — same unauthenticated hosting pattern as every other CBRD form this registry has already modelled. - HTTP 200, **46,918 bytes** retrieved — byte-identical to both prior disclosures (GOV-4911, GOV-4918). - sha256 of the retrieved bytes: `2fcbee32a4fb31c4297cbe26a1009285d532bc1f161d1e2372370abda978bf46`. - 1 page, confirmed via `pdfjs-dist`'s `numPages`. - `getAnnotations()` returned 0 form-field annotations — not an interactive AcroForm, same as every sibling CBRD schema. - `getTextContent()` returned 100 positioned text items — a genuine text layer, with every printed label and blank-line dot-leader run recovered cleanly, including exact `(x, y)` positions per item. - Unlike its Consent-family siblings, this form's body prints three small bordered boxes (Registered No., Category, Date of Registration) and two larger bordered single-line entry boxes (present name, new name) whose fill-in area is a ruled box rather than a dot-leader line. A canvas render at 2.5x scale (`node-canvas`) was used to confirm these are simple single-ruled-line boxes, not the ambiguous multi-line undivided boxes found on the LLP1/Foundation siblings, and to confirm the two unlabeled small squares near the footer are positioned immediately beside the "Sheet ___ of ___ (for office use)" line — officer-only marks, not applicant fields. The render dropped several Helvetica glyphs in the signature/declaration block (a known `node-canvas` font-substitution gap distinct from clean text-layer extraction, already documented in this registry's own `gov-form-pdf-extraction` practice note) — the text layer itself supplied those labels without ambiguity, so no field was left unmodelled because of the render gap. ### Authority attribution The form's own header ("THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2011", "(Section 17(2))") 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) directly. ## Extraction method A single positional text-layer dump (sorted by descending y-coordinate, then x, grouped into rows using a 2-point y-tolerance) reconstructed the form's row structure — the same method used on every prior CBRD sibling. A supplementary canvas render (see above) confirmed the box/line layout for the two ambiguous box regions and the footer checkboxes. ## Document structure **Page 1** (single page): - Header: "FOR OFFICE USE" (label) | "S17." / "F LP5" (printed form reference codes, not fillable) | "Document Folio" (officer-only small box beneath it) — none modelled, same officer-only header pattern as every sibling CBRD schema. - Title block: "THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2011" / "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP" / "(Section 17(2))" — static, not modelled. - Existing-partnership identification block: "Present name of Limited Partnership" (single-ruled-line box), followed by three small bordered boxes stacked vertically — "Registered No.", "Category", "Date of Registration" — **a genuine structural feature not seen on any prior CBRD Business Formation schema in this registry**: every prior schema (LP2, LLP1, Foundation, LLP2 Consent, LP Consent) is a first-filing form describing a partnership/foundation not yet registered, so none needed a positive-identification block for an *existing* record. This notice form, being a post-registration amendment, requires the filer to state the partnership's own registered number, category, and original date of registration so the Department can match the notice to the correct existing record — all three modelled required, since the notice cannot be processed without identifying which registered Limited Partnership is being renamed. - New-name block: "Name of Limited Partnership" (single-ruled-line box) — the new name being requested, modelled as `newNameOfLimitedPartnership` to distinguish it from `presentNameOfLimitedPartnership` above (the source prints both under the near-identical label "Name of ... Limited Partnership" / "Present name of ... Limited Partnership", disambiguated here only by field position and this schema's own naming). - Declaration block: "Signature of general partner(s): ______", "Name of general partner(s): ______", "Date: ______" — unlike the Consent-family siblings, **this form prints no "attach a separate sheet" boilerplate** for multiple general partners, despite using the same plural "(s)" wording; each is modelled as a single field matching the form's own single printed line, disclosed as a scope note rather than an either/or or multi-value field the source does not itself provide for. - "Presented by:" block (filer, applicant-fillable): "Name: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Address: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Reference: ______" (one line, optional) — same convention as every sibling CBRD schema. - "(For office use)" column, printed alongside "Presented by:": "Other fees :... ....." (fee schedule, three unlabeled rows), "Officer's Name:", "Sig:", "Date:" — all officer-only, not modelled. - Footer: "Sheet ___ of ___ (for office use)" plus two small unlabeled checkboxes positioned immediately beside it (confirmed via canvas render, see above) — officer-only administrative marks, not modelled. ## Conformance No `requiredWhen` gates are used — every field on this form is either unconditionally required or unconditionally optional (`presentedByReference`), unlike the either/or BRN/ID No. pattern on the Consent-family siblings, which this form does not print. An ephemeral, uncommitted Node script exercised: - 1 valid scenario: all required fields supplied, `presentedByReference` omitted. - 9 required-field-omission mutations (one per required field: `presentNameOfLimitedPartnership`, `registeredNo`, `category`, `dateOfRegistration`, `newNameOfLimitedPartnership`, `declarationDate`, `signatureOfGeneralPartner`, `nameOfGeneralPartner`, `presentedByName`, `presentedByAddress` — 10 required fields total, each independently rejected as expected). - 1 unknown-field-rejection mutation, rejected as expected. Both `node tools/validate.mjs` and `node tools/validate-ajv.mjs` pass against the full registry with this schema included. ## Scope and disclosed backlog This schema does not model any of the other companion/notice forms on the same downloadable-forms listing: - **Notice of Change in Registered Particulars** (LP7, 47,636 bytes, HTTP 200) — the other double-verified item from the GOV-4918 disclosure, re-confirmed still linked on this cycle's fresh fetch of the listing page but not independently re-byte-verified this cycle. Left open, disclosed backlog. - Their Limited Liability Partnership Act 2016 analogues, previously disclosed and not re-fetched this cycle: **Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Liability Partnership** (LLP5), **Notice of Change in Registered Office** (LLP4), **Application for removal of Limited Liability Partnership from Register** (LLP8). Left open, disclosed backlog. - **Consent of Manager** (LLP2 sibling form) and **Application for Removal of Limited Partnership from Register** (LP4) remain the two genuine dead links (HTTP 404) on the Department's own hosting first disclosed on the GOV-4911 cycle, not re-tested this cycle. - **Newly surfaced this cycle, not disclosed on any prior CBRD schema's VERIFICATION.md** — the listing page hosts a further set of LP/LLP companion forms never previously named as banked backlog: `NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-IN-REGISTERED-PARTICULARS_LLP7.pdf` (an LLP-family "Registered Particulars" notice distinct from the LP7 form already banked above — the listing page reuses "LP7" and "LLP7" as separate form codes, easy to conflate), `NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-GENERAL-PARTNER_LP.pdf`, `NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-MANAGER_LLP6.pdf`, `NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-PARTNER_LLP6.pdf`, `APPLICATION-FOR-RESERVATION-OF-LIMITED-PARTNERSHIP-NAME_LP1.pdf`, `RESERVATION-OF-NAME-LLP_LLP3.pdf`, `Annual-Return_LP3.pdf`, and `APPLICATION-TO-CHANGE-NAME-OF-A-FOUNDATION.pdf`. None of these were fetched or byte-verified this cycle; flagged here so a future cycle re-scans the listing page directly rather than only the previously banked candidate names. Full company incorporation itself remains out of scope (login-gated CBRIS portal, no static equivalent, per every prior CBRD schema's own disclosed scope).