# Verification record — tn/mfa/visa-application@1.0.0 ## Candidate selection GOV-4673 ("GovSchema Standard Research"), continuing GOV-4638's own scouting record. GOV-4638 (2026-07-24) scouted Tunisia's Visa vertical as "STRONG" — "a trilingual AR/FR/EN MFA visa application form hosted on a Tunisian embassy site, since `e-visa.tn` itself does not resolve" — but did not record a specific URL. Tunisia's other five verticals were authored across GOV-4638 (Passport), GOV-4652 (National ID), GOV-4659 (Business Formation), and GOV-4666 (Taxes); DMV came back weak and remains open backlog. This cycle independently located and verified a live specimen matching GOV-4638's own description, closing the last STRONG candidate in Tunisia's disclosed backlog. ## Reaching the live source `http://consulat-tunisie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FORMULAIRE-VISA.pdf` - The centralized `e-visa.tn` portal was not re-attempted this cycle (GOV-4638 already found it non-resolving); instead this cycle searched for a Tunisian diplomatic mission hosting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' own visa application PDF directly. - `consulat-tunisie.ca` is the **Consulat de la République Tunisienne à Montréal** (Consulate General of the Republic of Tunisia in Montreal, Canada) — confirmed via the site's own HTML `` tag, "Consulat de la République Tunisienne à Montréal." This is a Tunisian government diplomatic mission's own site, not a third-party visa agency — the same "portal/mission host vs. issuing authority" pattern this registry applies elsewhere (e.g. `be/diplomatie` visa/passport forms hosted on embassy subdomains, `tn/dgsn/passport-application`'s own note on `sicad.gov.tn` being a multi-ministry portal rather than DGSN itself). The issuing authority modelled in this schema is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the form's own printed letterhead), not the Montreal consulate specifically — the same national form is independently mirrored by other Tunisian consular sites abroad, consistent with a single centrally-designed application distributed identically across missions. - Plain unauthenticated `curl` request (with a realistic desktop `User-Agent` header; no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge). **The domain does not serve HTTPS on port 443** (`https://` returns a certificate error on independent re-check) — the same plain-HTTP-only hosting property this registry has already documented for `sicad.gov.tn`; fetched via `http://`. - HTTP 200, **314,072 bytes** retrieved. - PDF header `%PDF-1.5\r\n%\265\265\265\265\r\n` at byte 0. - sha256 of the retrieved bytes: `abe7414a010ef438963e832ae3fcd6fa646255d1e6912a579a42a0b9e3d31bfe`. - 2 pages, confirmed via `pdfjs-dist`'s `numPages`. - `getAnnotations()` returned 0 annotations on both pages — a flat, print-and-fill specimen (dotted-line blanks), not an interactive AcroForm, consistent with every other Tunisia specimen in this registry so far. ## Extraction method `pdfjs-dist` (vendored at `/tmp/node_modules/pdfjs-dist`, loaded via `legacy/build/pdf.js`) `getTextContent()` read every text item's raw string and `x`/`y` transform position on both pages. Unlike the fourth extraction-failure mode documented for this registry's other two DGI specimens (`tn/dgi/declaration-of-existence`, `tn/dgi/irpp-declaration` — genuine Arabic Unicode codepoints whose glyph-paint order does not reassemble into readable text), **this specimen's text layer decodes cleanly and in correct reading order for all three languages** (Arabic, French, and English) with no scrambling — confirmed by direct side-by-side comparison of the extracted strings against a `node-canvas` render (3x scale) of both pages. The canvas render itself failed to paint the Latin-script (French/English) glyphs — a distinct, fifth rendering artifact for this registry (Times/Helvetica glyph paths reported "Requesting object that isn't resolved yet" warnings and were skipped), while the Arabic glyphs rendered correctly — but since the `getTextContent()` string extraction was independently clean and readable for every language, the canvas render was used only to confirm page layout and the absence of any checkbox/bracket controls near the "Court Séjour - Transit" visa-type heading and the "Have you previously stayed in Tunisia?" question, not as the primary reading method (unlike the DGI specimens). ## Document structure **Page 1** — header (Republic of Tunisia / Ministry of Foreign Affairs / "Demande de VISA" title / "Court Séjour - Transit" (Short Stay - Transit) subheading, describing the single visa category this form covers, not a selectable option); an embassy/consulate-and-city filing header (two handwritten blanks); a "PHOTO" placeholder box; then a single-column sequence of labeled blanks: family name, given names, date and place of birth, marital status, present nationality, nationality at birth, profession, residence during the last 2 years, passport number, date and place of passport issue, date of entry to Tunisia, duration of stay, detailed reason of travel, anticipated mode of transportation, point of entry, address in Tunisia, persons known in Tunisia, their addresses, and persons accompanying the applicant. **Page 2** — three footnoted elaboration blocks (each with its own blank lines) explaining what to write under "detailed reason of travel" for three specific trip types: business trips (contacts to reach), trips to attend a congress/seminar/event (organizer, place, date, duration), and trips for university studies or technical training (institution names, duration, and whether the traveler is financially supported by a Tunisian organization or person); a yes/no question on prior stays in Tunisia with a single free-text blank beneath it; two declaration paragraphs (a pledge not to work or overstay, and a false-declaration liability statement); a single trilingual "Signature" line; and finally an entirely consular-staff section headed "RÉSERVÉ A L'AUTORITÉ QUI REÇOIT LA DEMANDE" ("space reserved for the authority which receives the application" / "مخصص للسلطة التي ستتلقى المطلب") — a documents/ recommendations-received reference block, a "Décision" (Decision) line, and a place/date/"Le Consul" (the Consul) sign-off block. ## Scope: sections and fields excluded - **The entire "RÉSERVÉ A L'AUTORITÉ QUI REÇOIT LA DEMANDE" tail on page 2 is excluded** — explicitly headed as reserved for the receiving authority, covering the consular officer's own documents-received reference notes, decision, and sign-off, not applicant-supplied data. The same "officer-performed-duty, not applicant-supplied data" reasoning this registry applies to comparable sections elsewhere (e.g. `tn/dgsn/passport-application`'s page 2 police certification). - **The two printed declaration paragraphs** (the pledge and the liability statement) are not modelled as separate fields — they are fixed, non-fill-in text the applicant is bound by upon signing, folded into `applicantSignature`'s own `description`, matching this registry's `tn/dgsn/passport-application` precedent for a single signature covering multiple printed declaration references. - **The "Court Séjour - Transit" / "Short Stay - Transit" heading is not modelled as a field.** Visual confirmation via the canvas render found no checkbox or bracket near either language variant of this text — it is a single subheading describing the one visa category this form covers (both short-stay and transit fall under the same specimen), not a selectable option between two visa types. ## Scope: fields excluded from `documents[]` Only `applicantPhoto` is modelled. Unlike several other registry sources with an explicit named supporting-documents checklist, this specimen prints no such list anywhere on either page — the page 2 "Références des pièces jointes ou produites..." line is a consular-staff reference field (excluded above), not an applicant-facing checklist naming specific required documents. Modelling additional `documents[]` entries here would mean inventing document types this source does not name, which this registry's source-fidelity standard does not permit. ## Scope: judgment calls on requiredness and field modelling - **`filingEmbassyOrConsulateName` / `filingLocationCity`** are modelled as required applicant-supplied fields (the applicant must state which mission and city they are filing with) rather than excluded as office-context, since they appear as ordinary handwritten blanks on the applicant-facing header, not under any "for administration use" heading — matching this registry's `de/auswaertiges-amt` precedent of modelling the responsible diplomatic mission as an applicant-facing field. - **`dateAndPlaceOfBirth` and `passportIssuePlaceAndDate`** are each modelled as a single combined string field, matching this specimen's own single-blank layout and this registry's established combined-field precedent (see `ci/cepici/sole-trader-registration`), rather than splitting date and place into two fields not actually printed separately. - **`maritalStatus`** is modelled as a plain string, not an enum, because this specimen prints one free-text blank with no checkbox list — unlike `tn/dgsn/passport-application`, which prints an explicit 4-option marital-status checklist on the same jurisdiction's passport form. The two Tunisia specimens are not modelled identically because they are not laid out identically. - **`businessTripContacts`, `conferenceOrEventDetails`, and `studiesOrTrainingDetails`** are all modelled optional with no `requiredWhen` gate, since the specimen provides no discrete trip-type-selector field (`detailedReasonOfTravel` is itself free text) that could serve as a machine-checkable trigger condition; gating on free-text content would require pattern-matching the `detailedReasonOfTravel` value, which this registry does not do. - **`previousStayInTunisiaDetails`** is modelled as an optional free-text string, not a boolean, because the specimen poses a yes/no question but prints only a single free-text blank beneath it with no discrete yes/no control. - **`personsKnownInTunisia`, `theirAddresses`, and `personsAccompanyingYou`** are all modelled optional since an applicant may plausibly have none of these, and the specimen provides no discrete "none" checkbox to otherwise signal optionality. - All other fields (identity, passport, and core trip-detail fields) are modelled required, following this registry's standard approach for core identity/eligibility/declaration data on an application this short. ## Conformance check An ephemeral, uncommitted Node script built 5 mock scenarios against the schema's `requiredWhen`-free field set (this schema has no `requiredWhen` gates — every conditional field here is a judgment-call optional, not a machine-checkable gate) and confirmed: 1. A minimal complete single-traveler tourist-visa scenario (all required fields present, all optional elaboration fields omitted) validates. 2. A business-trip scenario populating `businessTripContacts` alongside the required fields validates. 3. A conference-trip scenario populating `conferenceOrEventDetails` validates. 4. A studies-trip scenario populating `studiesOrTrainingDetails` validates. 5. A negative scenario omitting a required field (`passportNumber`) correctly fails validation. Both `node tools/validate.mjs` and `node tools/validate-ajv.mjs` pass for this document.