# Verification record — `pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005` v1.0.0 This file is the **source-review record** for this document version, per the [`manual-source-review-v1`](../../../../../practices/manual-source-review-v1.md) practice. It documents the provenance of the published fields and flow and states the current verification claim honestly. ## Current claim - **`status`:** `draft` - **`verification.method`:** `manual-source-review-v1` - **`verification.lastVerifiedAt`:** `2026-07-11` This is a `GovSchema Standard Research` cycle (**GOV-2419**), a general research-analyst brief covering DMV, Business Formation, Visa, Passport, Taxes, and National ID & Civic Documents across all jurisdictions. ## Why this candidate CATALOG.md's own "Known Gaps & Opportunities" section (item 11, the GOV-2404 cycle's own note) named Peru's DGC-005 visa form as a re-confirmed candidate, but described it as weaker than the Vietnam TK01 form ultimately authored that cycle: "genuine unauthenticated static text-layer PDF... none carrying genuine AcroForm widgets." This cycle re-opened that assessment rather than treating it as settled, and re-fetched the form from three independent `gob.pe` mirrors instead of trusting the single mirror the prior cycle had examined: - The Barcelona consulate's own `gob.pe` page (`consulado-del-peru-en-iquique`/`5193085`) serves a **2013** revision: Microsoft Word 2007, `IsAcroFormPresent: false`, 0 AcroForm widgets — a genuine plain text-layer PDF, matching the prior cycle's characterization. - The Ministry's **own institutional page** (`gob.pe/institucion/rree/informes-publicaciones/279740-formulario-de-solicitud-de-visa-dgc-005`) and the Guayaquil consulate's page (`gob.pe/institucion/consulado-del-peru-en-guayaquil/informes-publicaciones/7986809-formulario-de-solicitud-de-visa-dgc-005`) both serve a **byte-identical** (`sha256:1b728535857a1b40...`), materially different **2019** revision: Microsoft Word 2016, `IsAcroFormPresent: true`, **63 real AcroForm widgets**, most carrying self-documenting `alternativeText` tooltips. This is a genuinely stronger candidate than the prior cycle scouted, not a re-confirmation of the same weak finding — the prior cycle's own single-mirror check happened to land on the superseded 2013 copy. The 2019 revision also differs substantively in content, not just format: it replaces the older binary Visa Temporal/Visa Residente split with a seven-way visa-subtype checkbox group (Turista, Negocios, Transeúnte, Artista, Tripulante, Otro, Residente), adds a Correo Electrónico field (item 13) with no counterpart in the 2013 copy, and adds an entirely new conditional Sección 4 ("Grupo Artístico — ONLY FOR ARTIST-APPLICATION") that does not exist in the 2013 copy at all. This schema is authored against the 2019 revision exclusively. ## Sources examined ### Source 1 (primary `source`, canonical Ministry-hosted copy) - **Authority:** Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú (Cancillería) - **Document:** Formulario DGC-005, "Solicitud de Visa" - **URL (directly retrieved, HTTP 200, no login):** , linked from the Ministry's own institutional publications page . - **File identity:** `sha256:1b728535857a1b406728e52e69abfe6c2de146b9f957148ef73746c6236ab8c8`, 311,026 bytes, PDF 1.6, linearized, `IsAcroFormPresent: true`. PDF metadata: `CreationDate: 2019-05-21`, `Creator: Microsoft® Word 2016`, `Author: Lisbeth Rosangel Antialon Quispe`. Confirmed byte-identical to the Guayaquil consulate's own independently-hosted copy (`cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/9767651/7986809-formulario-de-solicitud-de-visa-dgc-005.pdf`), cross-checked from a second `gob.pe` institutional path. - **Extraction method:** `pdfjs-dist` (legacy build) for both the text layer (`page.getTextContent()`, position-sorted by `transform` y/x to resolve the form's two-column grid layout) and the full AcroForm widget inventory (`page.getAnnotations()`, 63 `Widget` annotations, each with `fieldName`, `fieldType`, `rect`, and `alternativeText`). - **Retrieved / reviewed:** 2026-07-11 ### Source 2 (superseded revision, examined for comparison only) - **URL:** (mirrored via `cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/5193085/...`, the Barcelona consulate's own `gob.pe` page) - **File identity:** `sha256:3e3cd0b48eaffa6470f8ee3f1412d81e8d5ae217940e1ca297c9cf6958cf85ff`, 35,503 bytes, PDF 1.5, `IsAcroFormPresent: false`, 0 AcroForm widgets. `CreationDate: 2013-08-21`, `Creator: Microsoft® Word 2007`. - **Why not used:** confirmed materially superseded by Source 1 (see "Why this candidate" above) — no email field, no Grupo Artístico section, and only a binary Temporal/Residente visa-type split rather than the current seven-way subtype group. ## Field inventory (Phase 3) | Field (schema `name`) | Label (source) | AcroForm widget name(s) | Example valid value | |---|---|---|---| | `visaType` | Procedimiento a Realizar / Type of Visa | `Negocios`, `Transeúnte`, `Artista`, `Tripulante`, `Visa Residente Resident Visa` (Btn/checkBox); `Turista`, `Otro` (Tx, checkbox-position boxes) | `"TURISTA"` | | `otroEspecifique` | Otro (especifique) | `Business` (Tx; mismatched alternativeText, see judgment call 2) | `"Voluntariado"` | | `passportType` | Tipo de Pasaporte | `Type NumPassport` | `"Ordinario"` | | `passportNumber` | Número de Pasaporte | `Num` | `"AB1234567"` | | `apellidoPaterno` | Apellido Paterno | `2 Apellido Paterno` | `"García"` | | `apellidoMaternoCasada` | Apellido Materno o Casada | `Casada Maiden Name` | `"Fernández"` | | `nombres` | Nombres | `4 Nombres Name` | `"Lucía Isabel"` | | `sexo` | Sexo | `undefined_3` (Masculino, inferred), `Femenino Female` | `"FEMENINO"` | | `maritalStatus` | Estado Civil | `Soltero Single`, `Casado Married` (Btn); `Viudo Widowed`, `undefined_2` (Divorciado, inferred) (Tx) | `"SOLTERO"` | | `lugarNacimiento` | Lugar de Nacimiento (País) | (text label only, no distinct widget beyond the row's blank) | `"México"` | | `nacionalidad` | Nacionalidad | `8 Nacionalidad Nationality` | `"Mexicana"` | | `fechaNacimiento` | Fecha de Nacimiento | `d`, `d2`, `m1`, `m2`, `a1`-`a4` (8 boxes, consolidated) | `"1994-03-12"` | | `profesionOcupacion` | Profesión/Ocupación | `10 ProfesiónOcupación Ocupation` | `"Ingeniera de Software"` | | `domicilioPeru` | Domicilio o Alojamiento en el Perú | `11 Domicilio... AvJrCalle` + `...AvJrCalle2` (2 lines, consolidated) | `"Av. Larco 345, Miraflores, Lima"` | | `telefonoPeru` | Teléfono (Perú) | `Teléfono` | `"+51 987654321"` | | `domicilioExtranjero` | Domicilio en el Extranjero | `12 Domicilio en el Extranjero` | `"Calle Reforma 120, Ciudad de México"` | | `paisExtranjero` | País | `Country` | `"México"` | | `telefonoExtranjero` | Teléfono (Extranjero) | `Teléfono_2` | `"+52 5512345678"` | | `correoElectronico` | Correo Electrónico | `13 Correo Electrónico Email` | `"lucia.garcia@example.com"` | | `grupoArtisticoNombre` | Nombre (Grupo Artístico) | `Nombre` (Sección 4) | `"Ensamble Bianchi"` | | `grupoArtisticoNacionalidad` | Nacionalidad (Grupo Artístico) | `Nacionalidad` (Sección 4) | `"Italiana"` | `documents[]`: | Document `id` | What it is | Required? | |---|---|---| | `applicantPhoto` | Passport-style photo of the applicant (Sección 3) | Yes | ## Access notes and judgment calls 1. **`visaType` collapses seven checkbox-position widgets into one enum.** The source has no separate top-level "Visa Temporal" checkbox of its own — only its six sub-categories (Turista, Negocios, Transeúnte, Artista, Tripulante, Otro) and the sibling "Visa Residente" checkbox exist as widgets. Checking any one of the six sub-categories is what signals a temporary-visa application in this source; there is no redundant umbrella field to also model. 2. **`otroEspecifique`'s underlying AcroForm field carries the internal `alternativeText` "Business"**, despite sitting at the grid position immediately after the `Otro` checkbox and before the next section's `Visa Residente` row. Treated as a field-naming artifact of the source PDF (most likely copy-pasted from another field during the form's own authoring in Word) rather than evidence that this box is scoped only to business-purpose visas — its position, not its internal name, drives this schema's interpretation. 3. **Six of the group/pair widgets have no `alternativeText` of their own** (`undefined`, `undefined_2`, `undefined_3`, `undefined_4`, `undefined_5`, plus the unlabelled wide box after `Visa Residente`). `undefined_2` and `undefined_3` are resolved to Divorciado and Masculino respectively by their fixed grid position directly beside each option's own printed label (cross-checked against the row order common to both the 2013 and 2019 revisions: Soltero/Viudo then Casado/Divorciado; Masculino above Femenino). `undefined_4`/`undefined_5` and the wide box after `Visa Residente` sit inside Sección 5 (Reservado para Uso Interno) or have no printed label at all and are excluded from `fields[]` as out of scope (official-use / unidentifiable, respectively) — see judgment call 6. 4. **No required/optional marker system (no asterisks) is printed anywhere on this form**, unlike several other schemas already in this registry. This schema treats all 13 explicitly numbered Sección 2 items as `required: true`, and their unnumbered phone sub-fields (`telefonoPeru`, `telefonoExtranjero`) as optional, a disclosed, consistent convention rather than a claim that the source itself marks these fields' required status. 5. **`fechaNacimiento` consolidates 8 single-character AcroForm boxes** (`d`, `d2` for day; `m1`, `m2` for month; `a1`-`a4` for year) into one `type: date` field, per this registry's established convention for segmented date-of-birth boxes (e.g. `dk/cpr/notification-of-entry`). 6. **Sección 3 (Firma, Impresión Digital y Foto del Solicitante), Sección 5 (Reservado para Uso Interno), and Sección 6 (Observaciones / Firma del Cónsul o Encargado) are excluded from `fields[]` entirely.** Sección 3's signature and fingerprint are physical marks made in person at the consular counter, not data the applicant supplies in advance — only its photo requirement is modelled, as `documents[].applicantPhoto`. Sección 5 (case number, DIGEMIN authorization, consulate-name pre-fill) and Sección 6 (remarks and the consul's own signature) are internal government case-processing fields, never applicant-filled. 7. **Sección 4 (Grupo Artístico) is modelled with `requiredWhen` gating on `visaType equals ARTISTA`**, per its own printed heading, "ONLY FOR ARTIST – APLICATION" (sic, verbatim source typo preserved only in this note, not in the schema's own field labels). 8. **`correoElectronico`'s `validation.pattern` is a general-purpose email shape check**, not a source-published rule — the form itself prints no validation rule for this field beyond its own blank line. ## Test run (Phase 4) No live submission was attempted: Peru's visa system requires an in-person or consular appointment and physical signature/fingerprint capture (Sección 3), and submitting fabricated identity data against a foreign government's immigration/consular process is not a safe or reversible action — the same reasoning already documented for this registry's other consular/immigration schemas (e.g. `co/cancilleria/visa-application-individual`). Instead, two independent worked mock records were built from this document's own field inventory and checked with a purpose-written script (`validate_instance.mjs`, mirroring the approach used by `it/agenzia-entrate/modello-730` and `vn/gdt/to-khai-quyet-toan-thue-thu-nhap-ca-nhan`): compiles `schema.json`'s `fields[]` into a JSON Schema draft 2020-12 document checked with `ajv`, plus a from-scratch evaluator for the shared Condition grammar that checks both `fields[].requiredWhen` and `documents[]` requiredness against a `documents: [{id, provided}]` array — checking `documents[]` requiredness explicitly, since this registry's own accumulated experience is that conformance checkers routinely skip it. ``` $ node validate_instance.mjs registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json \ conformance/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/tourist-visa-first-time-applicant.json Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: PASS $ node validate_instance.mjs registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json \ conformance/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/artist-visa-with-ensemble.json Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: PASS ``` **Mutation controls** — three negative fixtures, each targeting a distinct validation rule: ``` $ # mutation-control-missing-required-field.json: 'passportNumber' (required: true) removed Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: FAIL - (root) must have required property 'passportNumber' requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: FAIL $ # mutation-control-email-pattern-violation.json: 'correoElectronico' set to 'not-an-email' Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: FAIL - /correoElectronico must match pattern "^[^@\s]+@[^@\s]+\.[^@\s]+$" requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: FAIL $ # mutation-control-missing-conditional-artist-field.json: visaType is 'ARTISTA' $ # but 'grupoArtisticoNombre' (requiredWhen visaType equals ARTISTA) removed Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: FAIL - field 'grupoArtisticoNombre' is required (requiredWhen matched) but not provided OVERALL: FAIL ``` The third case specifically exercises `fields[].requiredWhen` (as opposed to the plain static-`required` case in `mutation-control-missing-required-field.json`) — a validator that only checks static `required: true` fields and ignores conditional `requiredWhen` rules would incorrectly accept this fixture, which is exactly the gap this fixture exists to catch. Both meta-schema validators were run against the finished document and pass clean: ``` $ node tools/validate.mjs registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json 1/1 document(s) passed. $ node tools/validate-ajv.mjs registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pe/cancilleria/solicitud-visa-dgc-005/1.0.0/schema.json [v0.3] 1/1 document(s) validated against the meta-schema (ajv 2020-12). ``` A full-registry run of both validators also passed clean, and `tools/govschema-client/registry-index.json` was regenerated via `npm run build-index` (in `tools/govschema-client/`, after `npm ci --include=dev` since a plain `npm ci` under a local `NODE_ENV=production` skips `ajv`'s devDependency install) to include this document's entry. ## Peru's other five verticals (screened this cycle, not authored) Per the GOV-2404 cycle's own record, three of Peru's other candidates are genuine unauthenticated static text-layer PDFs without AcroForm widgets: SUNAT RUC registration (Formulario 2119, Business Formation), MTC's driver's-licence application (DMV), and DGC-005 itself was that cycle's own third comparison point for Visa — this cycle's finding that DGC-005 in fact carries a genuine 2019 AcroForm revision does not change the assessment of the other two siblings, which were not re-checked this cycle. Passport (Migraciones) and National ID (RENIEC DNI) remain appointment/biometric-gated; Taxes (SUNAT) is Clave-SOL-login-gated. Peru now stands at 1 of 6 verticals (Visa); the other five remain open backlog candidates for a future cycle, with Business Formation and DMV the strongest pre-scouted leads.