# Verification record — `pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular` 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`:** `2026-07-08` This is **GOV-1833**: a "GovSchema Standard Research" cycle pursuing the one lead `pt/mne/requerimento-cartao-cidadao-passaporte-consular`'s own VERIFICATION.md (GOV-1797) explicitly flagged as unexplored: "a genuinely distinct domestic or consular passport-specific form remains an open, unscreened backlog candidate for a future cycle." GOV-1797 had examined Rio de Janeiro's `req_cc.pdf` only as a *comparison point* against São Paulo's Cartão de Cidadão-centric AcroForm, and concluded the São Paulo form's own conditional "Somente Passaporte" option was the closest passport-adjacent source found — explicitly not a passport-specific application. This cycle searched further at the Rio de Janeiro consulate specifically and found a second, separate document at the same domain. ## Candidate screening ### Passport — picked: Rio de Janeiro consulate's `req_psspnovo.pdf` Searched `riodejaneiro.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt` beyond the `req_cc.pdf` GOV-1797 had already examined, and found `images/req_psspnovo.pdf` ("Requerimento de Passaporte") — a distinct, passport-specific intake form at the same consular post, not a variant or later version of `req_cc.pdf`. Unlike `req_cc.pdf` (Cartão de Cidadão-centric, referenced only in GOV-1797's comparison notes) and unlike São Paulo's `cc_e_pep_formulario.pdf` (also Cartão de Cidadão-primary, with a passport option conditioned on already holding a valid CC/BI), this form's own title, opening fields, and every downstream section (issuance-speed choice, document-delivery-by-mail option) are passport-specific throughout; the CC/BI number field that does appear is explicitly marked "(caso possua)" (if you have one) and used only as an optional cross-reference identity number, not the form's primary subject. Re-confirmed while re-screening this cycle: Portugal's domestic passport route (`gov.pt`'s "Pedir ou renovar o passaporte eletrónico português") still describes only an in-person, appointment-based, biometric-enrolment process via IRN with no downloadable citizen-facing form, consistent with every prior cycle's finding (Decreto-Lei n.º 83/2000 Art. 16). No other Portuguese consulate's site was found to publish a further, third passport-specific form distinct from this one and from São Paulo's CC-centric form. ## Access notes `riodejaneiro.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt` could not be reached directly from this environment: both `curl` and Node's native `https` client get a TLS handshake failure (`SSL routines::unexpected eof while reading` / `ECONNRESET`) immediately after the ClientHello, for every path on the domain — the same network-level block this registry's `gov1797` cycle recorded for the sibling `saopaulo.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt` subdomain. Per this registry's established Wayback workaround (project memory `gov-au-wayback-workaround.md`), the document was instead retrieved via `web.archive.org`'s snapshot: - `req_psspnovo.pdf` — Wayback snapshot `20240713201256` (2024-07-13), HTTP 200, `application/pdf`, 100,261 bytes, `%PDF-1.5`. `tools/verify-sources.mjs` was run against this document; both `riodejaneiro.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt` URLs report `WARN` (`ECONNRESET`, tolerated as a transient/blocked-access signature per the tool's own design), not `FAIL` — consistent with the network-level block described above rather than a dead or fabricated citation. ## Extraction method `pdfjs-dist` (legacy Node build) was used to extract the page's text content with per-item `(x, y)` transform coordinates, then grouped into printed lines by `y`-coordinate and sorted left-to-right by `x` within each line, to reconstruct the form's exact field order and grouping without relying on raw extraction order. Separately, `page.getAnnotations()` was called and returned **0 annotations** — this PDF carries no AcroForm or XFA layer at all (confirmed independently: the raw file bytes contain no `/AcroForm` or `/XFA` token anywhere), unlike either `cc_e_pep_formulario.pdf` (a genuine 45-widget AcroForm) or `req_cc.pdf` (also widget-free, per GOV-1797's own finding) at the sibling consulates. This document's entire field set is therefore modelled from its self-documenting, cleanly legible printed text layer alone — every field here is the same class of source GOV-1797's own `dateOfRequest` field used for its one widget-less line, applied to an entire one-page form rather than a single field. ## Field inventory 25 `fields[]` entries (0 with a real AcroForm widget — the source form has no fillable layer at all) and 1 `documents[]` entry, reconstructed from the extracted text lines below (`y`-coordinate, top to bottom): | Printed line (y-coord) | Field(s) modelled | |---|---| | `Nome completo:` (647) | `fullName` | | `Nº do Cartão de Cidadão ou Bilhete de identidade (caso possua) :` (633) | `identityCardNumber` | | `Data de Validade` (620) | `identityCardValidityDate` | | `Possui Passaporte (Português) Válido ? Não Sim (...)` (592/582) | `hasValidPortuguesePassport` | | `Data de Nascimento: CPF:` (561) | `dateOfBirth`, `cpf` | | `Nome do pai:` (547) | `fatherName` | | `Nome da mãe:` (533) | `motherName` | | `Local de nascimento :` / `Nascidos em Portugal:` / `Freguesia :` (506/492/478) | `civilParishOfBirth` | | `Concelho :` (464) | `municipalityOfBirth` | | `Nascidos no Brasil ou outro país :` / `Cidade/Estado:` (437/423) | `birthCityState` | | `País :` (409) | `birthCountry` | | `Endereço de residência:` (381) | `residentialAddress` | | `Bairro:` (368) | `residentialNeighborhood` | | `CEP: Cidade/Estado:` (354) | `residentialPostalCode`, `residentialCityState` | | `Nº Celular : ( ) Nº Tel. Fixo ( )` (340) | `mobilePhone`, `landlinePhone` | | `e-mail` (326) | `email` | | `Modo de emissão: Urgente (7 dias uteis) Sem urgência (14 dias )` (299) | `issuanceMode` | | `Endereço para a entrega do documento (caso não seja o mesmo da residência):` (243) | `deliveryAddressDifferentFromResidence` | | `Bairro:` (216) | `deliveryNeighborhood` | | `CEP: Cidade/Estado:` (202) | `deliveryPostalCode`, `deliveryCityState` | | `Data:` (166) | `dateOfRequest` | `documents[]`: `previousValidPassport`, sourced from the form's own "caso sim, apresentar o passaporte válido no dia do atendimento" (if yes, present the valid passport on the day of the appointment) instruction, modelled with `requiredWhen` gated on `hasValidPortuguesePassport` equalling `true`. ## Judgment calls 1. **Closes Portugal's Passport vertical**, distinct from the National ID vertical `pt/mne/requerimento-cartao-cidadao-passaporte-consular` already occupies. This form's own title ("Requerimento de Passaporte") and every section are passport-specific; the one CC/BI field present is an optional cross-reference, not the form's primary subject — the inverse structure of the São Paulo sibling, where Cartão de Cidadão is primary and passport is the conditional option. This satisfies the distinction GOV-1797's own judgment call 1 drew when declining to double-count the São Paulo form under both verticals. 2. **No `requiredWhen` dependency is asserted between the "born in Portugal" fields (`civilParishOfBirth`/`municipalityOfBirth`) and the "born in Brazil or another country" fields (`birthCityState`/ `birthCountry`)**, for the same reason as the São Paulo sibling schema's judgment call 5: the form carries section headers, not a checkbox or radio control selecting between the two, so asserting a structural rule here would fabricate a dependency the source does not itself encode as a checkable condition (see project memory `notequals-empty-string-absent-field-bug`). 3. **No field is marked `required: true` on an explicit in-document mandatory-marker** — this form's extractable text carries no "obrigatório" (or equivalent) annotation anywhere. Every `required: true` field (`fullName`, `hasValidPortuguesePassport`, `dateOfBirth`, `fatherName`, `motherName`, `issuanceMode`, `dateOfRequest`) is instead inferred from its role as a structurally necessary identity/parentage/ gating/closing field, the same softer basis disclosed in the São Paulo sibling schema's judgment call 8. `identityCardNumber`, `cpf`, `email`, and both address blocks are left optional for the same reason, plus the source's own "(caso possua)" (if you have one) qualifier on the identity card field. 4. **`dateOfRequest` is modelled despite carrying no AcroForm widget** — consistent with the São Paulo sibling schema's own judgment call 4, except here it applies to the entire form rather than one closing line, since this document has no fillable layer at all. Included because it is a clearly designated, self-documenting field on the form's own face. 5. **No fee/payment `documents[]` entry.** No fee schedule or payment instruction is printed anywhere on this one-page form (unlike the São Paulo sibling, whose separate fee-schedule PDF at least surfaced in a web search even though it could not be fetched). Omitted rather than fabricated, consistent with this registry's standing discipline after the GOV-1760/GOV-1763 fabricated-sourcing incidents. 6. **No live submission was attempted.** Submitting this form at a real consular appointment triggers a real fee, a real biometric appointment, and a real change to the applicant's legal travel document — not a safe or reversible action to simulate against a live government process, consistent with this registry's standing discipline. ## Validation ``` $ node tools/validate.mjs registry/pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0/schema.json 1/1 document(s) passed. $ node tools/validate-ajv.mjs registry/pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0/schema.json [v0.3] 1/1 document(s) validated against the meta-schema (ajv 2020-12). $ node tools/verify-sources.mjs registry/pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0 verify-sources: checking 1 schema version directory... pt/mne/requerimento-passaporte-consular/1.0.0 (3 URLs) [WARN] https://riodejaneiro.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt/ transient failure after 3 attempt(s) (ECONNRESET) — tolerated, re-check manually if this persists [WARN] https://riodejaneiro.consuladoportugal.mne.gov.pt/images/req_psspnovo.pdf transient failure after 3 attempt(s) (ECONNRESET) — tolerated, re-check manually if this persists verify-sources: 1 directory, 3 URLs checked, 2 warning(s), 0 allowlisted, all clear. ``` Both `WARN`s are expected given the environment-level TLS block documented above under "Access notes," not evidence of a dead or fabricated source.