# Verification record — mu/cbrd/limited-partnership-registration@1.0.0 ## Candidate selection GOV-4624 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). Mauritius opened as the registry's 92nd jurisdiction via `mu/pio/passport-application` (GOV-4603), which banked three further STRONG verticals as open backlog: DMV, Business Formation, and Visa. DMV (`mu/nlta/vehicle-registration-mark-application`, GOV-4610) and Visa (`mu/pio/visa-application`, GOV-4617) have since been authored, leaving Business Formation the sole remaining item in that banked backlog. This schema authors it: the Corporate and Business Registration Department (CBRD)'s own downloadable-forms page, `companies.govmu.org/cbrd/downloadable-forms/`, which GOV-4603 had already independently verified hosts dozens of real, unauthenticated PDFs, naming a Limited Partnership registration form (~60,000 bytes) as the specific candidate. Full company incorporation itself routes through the login-gated CBRIS portal with no static/downloadable equivalent found (re-confirmed this cycle, no change), so — as GOV-4603 scoped it — this candidate is the directly-downloadable Limited Partnership registration form, not company incorporation proper. The same downloadable-forms page also lists a Limited Liability Partnership registration form (`LLP1.pdf`) and a Foundation registration form as siblings; the Limited Partnership form (`LP2.pdf`) was selected as the one GOV-4603 had already byte-verified and banked by name. ## Reaching the live source `https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/APPLICATION-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-A-LIMITED-PARTNERSHIP_LP2.pdf` - Plain unauthenticated `curl`, no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge — the listing page itself (`/cbrd/downloadable-forms/`) returned HTTP 200 with no bot-mitigation headers, and the PDF link was read directly out of its HTML. - HTTP 200, **60,153 bytes** retrieved — matching the "~60,000 bytes" figure GOV-4603 banked for this candidate. - sha256 of the retrieved bytes: `788c50b20dc7a82c52dc7f751e541151bcec65443164c6777a5d83cfff9e5403`. - 2 pages, confirmed via `pdfjs-dist`'s `numPages`. - `getAnnotations()` returned 0 annotations on both pages — not an interactive AcroForm. - `getTextContent()` returned 112 text items on page 1 and 114 on page 2 — a genuine text layer, unlike this registry's other three Mauritius schemas (all flat scanned images). Every printed label and blank-line run (rendered as runs of "." dot characters) was recovered cleanly as text, including exact `(x, y)` positions per item. ### Authority attribution The form's own footer/heading data ("THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2011", "S19. F LP2") and its hosting directly on the Corporate and Business Registration Department's own domain (`companies.govmu.org/cbrd/`, the same authority already attributed for this registry's scoping record in GOV-4603) attribute `authority` to the Corporate and Business Registration Department (abbreviation CBRD) directly. ## Extraction method Because `getTextContent()` returned a genuine, positioned text layer, the primary extraction was a positional read: every item's string plus its `transform` matrix's `(x, y)` origin was dumped and used to reconstruct the form's two-column and repeating-row layout (grouping same-`y` items into label/value pairs, and same-`x` runs into repeating rows). A supplementary canvas render (via `pdfjs-dist` + the vendored `node-canvas` build, this registry's standard image-only fallback) was also attempted at 2.5x scale to visually cross-check checkbox positions, but **failed to rasterize most glyphs** — the rendered pages show the ruled-line grid, checkbox boxes, and curly-brace groupings clearly, but almost all letterforms are missing (a `getPathGenerator` "requesting object that isn't resolved yet" warning was logged for nearly every character). This is a distinct failure mode from this registry's prior `gov-form-pdf-extraction` cases: there, clean text extraction and clean rendering both succeeded or both failed together; here, text extraction succeeded cleanly while rendering failed — confirming this registry's own caution that "node-canvas can fail to render glyphs even when text-layer extraction is clean" applies to this specimen too. The positional text dump, not the render, is the source of truth for this schema's field order and grouping. ## Document structure **Page 1** — a declaration preamble followed by the Section 19 particulars of the proposed Limited Partnership: - Preamble: "We, the undersigned, being the general partner(s) of the proposed Limited Partnership ______, hereby apply for registration as a Limited Partnership, and for that purpose supply the following particulars, pursuant to section 19 of the Limited Partnerships Act 2011, and hereby declare that the information contained in the application is true and correct." The blank line falls grammatically between "of the proposed Limited Partnership" and the comma before "hereby apply" — i.e. it calls for the partnership's own proposed name, not the general partner's name — so it is modelled as restating `nameOfLimitedPartnership`, not as a distinct field. - Two-column particulars table (label left, blank/checkbox right): - "The Name of Limited Partnership" — blank line. - "Category" — "Domestic" / "Foreign" / "Global Business" (three checkboxes, confirmed against the rendered image, which — unlike the glyph text — did rasterize the checkbox squares themselves cleanly). - "The General Nature of the Business" — blank line. - "The Principal Place of Business" / "The Registered Office:" — two separate blank lines. - "The duration, if any, for which the Limited Partnership is entered into, and the date of its commencement" (a 3-line label spanning two fields, grouped by a curly brace in the render) — pairs with "Duration (if any) [or N/A] ___ Years" (same row) and "Date of Commencement" (own row, its value position not captured by either the text or the render, treated as a plain date entry per this registry's usual `date` typing). - "If no definite duration the conditions of existence of the Limited partnership" (a second curly-brace-grouped label) — blank line, modelled as the durationless alternative to `durationYears`. - "State whether the Limited Partnership have a legal personality" — "Yes" / "No" (two checkboxes, confirmed in the render). - "FOR OFFICE USE" / "Document Folio" — a top-right officer-only box, excluded (same "officer-only, not applicant-supplied" convention this registry applies elsewhere, e.g. `mu/nlta/vehicle-registration-mark-application`'s own excluded "OFFICIAL USE" box). **Page 2** — "Full Name and Address of each of the Partners", two repeating-row tables: - **GENERAL PARTNERS (Full Name)** — 7 blank-ruled rows (positionally confirmed: 7 distinct `y` values, each a full-width dotted line), each paired at the same `y` with an **Address** blank line in a second column further right. - **LIMITED PARTNERS (Full Name)** — a second, identically laid-out block of 7 blank-ruled rows, each again paired with an **Address** column. Immediately preceding this block's Address column, positioned at the same `y`-range, is a third pair of columns: "Amount contributed or undertaken to be contributed by each Limited Partner, and whether paid or to be paid in cash or how otherwise" — headed "Capital Contribution", "Cash (Rs)" / "Non Cash (Rs)". This column pair sits only alongside the Limited Partners rows, not the General Partners rows — consistent with capital contribution being a defining feature of a *limited* partner's role (as opposed to a general partner's unlimited-liability management role) under the Limited Partnerships Act 2011. - Closing: "Signature of general partner(s): ______", "Date: ______", "Issue No. 1 of 16.01.2012" (a form-revision footer, not a field). ## Field model: bounded partner slots Per this registry's `spec/proposals/0009-repeating-groups.md` (still a proposal, not yet folded into the ratified v0.3 meta-schema), unbounded arrays are not representable; repeating structures are modelled as bounded, explicitly numbered field slots, the same convention this registry established for `zm/pacra/company-incorporation`'s `director1*`/`director2*` fields. This form prints exactly 7 blank rows for General Partners and 7 for Limited Partners (positionally counted, not estimated), so this schema models `generalPartner1..7FullName`/`Address` and `limitedPartner1..7FullName`/`Address`/`CashContribution`/ `NonCashContribution` — 14 + 28 = 42 of this schema's 53 total fields. Unlike the ZM precedent, this form prints no accompanying "number of partners" count field or "additional partner?" checkbox to gate slots 2-7 on — it simply offers 7 blank lines with no explicit indication of how many will be used. Rather than invent a discriminator field the source itself does not show (this registry's standing "don't invent fields the source doesn't show" practice, e.g. `mu/nlta/vehicle-registration-mark- application`'s `individualTitle` free-text-not-enum judgment call), slot 1 of each partner type is modelled `required: true` — a limited partnership by definition under the Limited Partnerships Act 2011 must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner — while slots 2-7 are modelled `required: false` with no `requiredWhen` gate at all. ## Scope: fields and sections excluded - The "FOR OFFICE USE" / "Document Folio" box (page 1, top right) — officer-only. - "Issue No. 1 of 16.01.2012" (page 2 footer) — a form-revision/print identifier, not applicant-supplied data. ## Scope: judgment calls on requiredness This source carries no asterisk/mandatory-marking convention anywhere (confirmed across both the text dump and the render), so requiredness was assigned by engineering judgment: 1. **`nameOfLimitedPartnership`, `category`, `generalNatureOfBusiness`, `principalPlaceOfBusiness`, `registeredOffice`, `dateOfCommencement`, `hasLegalPersonality`, `signatureOfGeneralPartner`, `declarationDate` modelled required** — the form's own core operative content (the Section 19 particulars the Limited Partnerships Act itself requires, plus the closing signature/date), consistent with this registry's standard approach of treating a document's own core declared content as required absent contrary evidence. 2. **`durationYears`/`conditionsOfExistenceIfIndefinite` both modelled optional, with no `requiredWhen` gate between them.** The form frames these as alternatives in prose ("Duration (if any) [or N/A]" vs. "if no definite duration, the conditions of existence") but prints no checkbox or other selectable field to gate one on the other's absence — and this registry's own `notequals-empty-string-absent-field-bug` practice specifically warns against gating `requiredWhen` on an optional field being empty/absent. Both are left optional rather than inventing such a condition. 3. **`generalPartner1FullName`/`Address` and `limitedPartner1FullName`/`Address` modelled required; slots 2-7 of each modelled optional with no gate.** See "Field model: bounded partner slots" above. 4. **`limitedPartner{1-7}CashContribution`/`NonCashContribution` all modelled optional.** A limited partner may contribute entirely in cash, entirely in kind, or a mix of both; the form does not print an asterisk or other mandatory marking on either contribution column, so neither is forced required (which would otherwise wrongly demand a "0" entry in whichever column a given partner did not use). ## Conformance 2 mock scenarios were reasoned through by hand against this schema's own `fields[]` conditions (not committed as fixture files, following this registry's own precedent for other Mauritius specimens, e.g. `mu/nlta/vehicle-registration-mark-application`): (1) a two-person domestic Limited Partnership with a fixed term — one general partner (slot 1 only) and one limited partner (slot 1 only) contributing entirely in cash, `category` = `domestic`, `durationYears` = `"10"`, `conditionsOfExistenceIfIndefinite` left blank, `hasLegalPersonality` = `no` — every slot-1 required field populated, every slot 2-7 field and `limitedPartner1NonCashContribution` correctly left blank/optional; (2) a Global Business Limited Partnership with an indefinite term and three general partners plus two limited partners, one of whom contributes a mix of cash and in-kind property — `category` = `global_business`, `durationYears` left as `"N/A"`, `conditionsOfExistenceIfIndefinite` populated, `hasLegalPersonality` = `yes`, `generalPartner1-3FullName`/ `Address` and `limitedPartner1-2FullName`/`Address` populated (slots 4-7 general, 3-7 limited correctly left blank), `limitedPartner1CashContribution` and `limitedPartner1NonCashContribution` both populated for the mixed contributor. Both scenarios validate cleanly against this schema with no `requiredWhen` conditions to exercise (this schema has none — see judgment calls above) and no field left inconsistently required/optional across the two runs. Validated clean with `node tools/validate.mjs` and `node tools/validate-ajv.mjs` (ajv 2020-12 against `spec/v0.3/govschema.schema.json`). `registry-index.json` regenerated via `npm run build-index` in `tools/govschema-client/`. Models 53 `fields[]` across 4 steps. No `documents[]` entries — this specimen discloses no supporting-document checklist anywhere across its two pages, the same as `mu/nlta/vehicle-registration-mark-application`. This schema closes Mauritius's entire GOV-4603-banked backlog: DMV, Business Formation, and Visa are now all authored, alongside Passport — Mauritius stands at 4 of 6 verticals. Taxes (MRA's individual-return filing is login-gated) and National ID (the National Identity Card Unit's own site has no standard first-issue application form) remain confirmed dead ends per GOV-4603/GOV-4617's own scouting record.