# Verification record — `vn/dangkykinhdoanh/dang-ky-doanh-nghiep-tnhh-mot-thanh-vien` 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. ## Current claim - **`status`:** `draft` - **`verification.method`:** `manual-source-review-v1` - **`verification.lastVerifiedAt`:** `2026-07-12` This is a `GovSchema Standard Research` cycle (**GOV-2443**, a follow-on to **GOV-2441**). It opens Vietnam's **Business Formation vertical (3 of 6)**, following `vn/xuatnhapcanh/to-khai-cap-ho-chieu-pho-thong-trong-nuoc` (Passport, 1 of 6, GOV-2404) and `vn/gdt/to-khai-quyet-toan-thue-thu-nhap-ca-nhan` (Taxes, 2 of 6, GOV-2411). ## Attempt to reach the primary first-party host GOV-2441's background research named `dangkykinhdoanh.gov.vn` (Vietnam's National Business Registration Portal) as reachable unauthenticated this cycle, citing successful fetches of sibling forms on the same host. This cycle's own attempts, however, found the opposite: - `curl` (both a browser `User-Agent` and a bare one) against `https://dangkykinhdoanh.gov.vn/vn/tin-tuc/download.aspx` and `https://dangkykinhdoanh.gov.vn/vn/Pages/Noidunghuongdan.aspx?lhID=3&htID=18` (the portal's own single-member-LLC procedural-guidance page) both returned `HTTP:000` (no TCP connection) after a 25-30s timeout, on two separate attempts. - `WebFetch` against the same guidance-page URL failed with `unable to verify the first certificate` — a TLS handshake failure, not a content error. This matches this registry's own prior gov.vn-host-unreachable precedent (`gdt.gov.vn`, `canhan.gdt.gov.vn`, `dfat.gov.au`/`gov.au`) rather than GOV-2441's own "confirmed reachable" note; the earlier finding evidently does not hold for this specific page/session. Per this cycle's own sourcing guidance, the fallback path was used instead. ## Source used: the Official Gazette of the Government of Vietnam (congbao.chinhphu.vn) Rather than falling back to `cms.luatvietnam.vn` (GOV-2441's named fallback mirror), this cycle located and used a **stronger** first-party source: the Circular's own promulgation record in Công báo (the Official Gazette of the Government of Vietnam), reached via `congbao.chinhphu.vn`'s own citation page for Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC. - **Citation page:** `https://congbao.chinhphu.vn/van-ban/thong-tu-so-68-2025-tt-btc-45617/57815.htm` — fetched with a browser `User-Agent`, **HTTP 200**, 155,129 bytes. Its own `` reads "Thông tư số 68/2025/TT-BTC ban hành biểu mẫu sử dụng trong đăng ký doanh nghiệp, đăng ký hộ kinh doanh." and links to four PDF parts hosted on `congbaocdn.chinhphu.vn` (the Gazette's own CDN), each covering roughly 50-95 pages of the full circular-plus-appendices. - **Part used (Part 1 of 4):** `https://congbaocdn.chinhphu.vn/CongBaoCP/VanBan/2025/7/45617/57815-1-2025985-98668-2025-tt-btc.pdf` — fetched directly, **HTTP 200**, 583,707 bytes, genuine `%PDF-1.4` header, **sha256:** `0f660eed7202ad23d398342b2e151691e4d14df87ea644278ccee965e45c527c`, 50 pages. Printed masthead: "CÔNG BÁO/Số 985 + 986/Ngày 27-7-2025." - The other three parts (`57818-1-2025987-98868-2025-tt-btc.pdf`, `57821-1-2025989-99068-2025-tt-btc.pdf`, `57824-1-2025991-99268-2025-tt-btc.pdf`) were also fetched (HTTP 200 each, 734,059 / 739,052 / 532,770 bytes, all genuine `%PDF-1.4`) to confirm Part 1 contains the complete Mẫu số 2 template rather than a truncated excerpt; Part 1's own page 29 (Công báo page 75) ends with "(Xem tiếp Công báo số 987 + 988)" immediately after Mẫu số 2's own closing signature block and before Mẫu số 3 begins on the very next page — confirming Mẫu số 2 is captured in full within Part 1 alone. ### Extraction method `pdfjs-dist` (`legacy/build/pdf.mjs`, reused from a prior cycle's cached `node_modules`) was used to extract each page's `getTextContent()` in reading order. A keyword scan for "Mẫu số 02" / "một thành viên" across all four parts located the form: the Table of Contents (Part 1, p.3, Công báo p.49) lists "Mẫu số 2 — Giấy đề nghị đăng ký doanh nghiệp - Công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn một thành viên," and the form's own full text was found on Part 1, pages 18-29 (Công báo pages 64-75), immediately preceded by Mẫu số 1 (sole proprietorship, ending p.17/Công báo p.63) and immediately followed by Mẫu số 3 (multi-member LLC, beginning p.30/Công báo p.76). ## Legal-currency check Per this cycle's own instructions (Vietnamese forms have twice been caught stale in this registry: X01→TK01, and the pre-2025-amendment PIT template), a currency check was run before authoring: - A web search for "Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC sửa đổi thay thế 2026" found no amending or superseding circular for Phụ lục I as of 2026-07-12. The only "68/2026" result found (Thông tư 68/2026/TT-BTC, on science/technology/ digital-transformation) is an unrelated circular that merely shares next year's sequence number — not a successor to 68/2025/TT-BTC. - Search results independently confirm Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC itself **repeals and replaces** Phụ lục I of the short-lived Thông tư 43/2025/TT-BTC (17/06/2025) — i.e. 68/2025 is already the second iteration within its own effective month, and no third iteration has followed. - A companion decree, Nghị định số 168/2025/NĐ-CP (30/6/2025, effective 01/7/2025, replacing Nghị định 01/2021/NĐ-CP and Nghị định 122/2020/NĐ-CP), governs the underlying registration procedure and dossier composition; its effective date matches Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC's, and no search result surfaced any amendment to it either. - The form's own printed footnotes cite Nghị định 168/2025/NĐ-CP by number throughout (e.g. footnote 3's "khoản 7 Điều 28 Nghị định số 168/2025/NĐ-CP ngày 30/6/2025"), confirming the Gazette copy is not merely contemporary with but was drafted specifically to align with the current decree. **Conclusion:** Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC, Phụ lục I, Mẫu số 2, is the current, in-force template as of 2026-07-12. No superseding circular was found. ## Authority naming Vietnam's mid-2025 government restructuring merged the Ministry of Planning and Investment (Bộ Kế hoạch và Đầu tư) — which had operated the national business-registration function via its own Cục Quản lý đăng ký kinh doanh — into the Ministry of Finance (Bộ Tài chính). A targeted search (not assumed) found the function is now performed by Bộ Tài chính's own **Cục Phát triển doanh nghiệp tư nhân và kinh tế tập thể** (Agency for Private Enterprise Development and Collective Economy), per that agency's own institutional page (`dangkykinhdoanh.gov.vn/vn/gioi-thieu/216/Cuc-quan-ly-dang-ky-kinh-doanh.aspx`) and a corroborating professional-advisory summary of Bộ Tài chính's own `Công văn 7984/BTC-DNTN 2025`. `authority.name` reflects this current name; `authority.abbreviation` (`DKKD`) and this registry's own `vn/dangkykinhdoanh/...` id path segment are tied to the unchanged `dangkykinhdoanh.gov.vn` domain instead — the same convention `vn/gdt` followed for its own Tổng cục Thuế→Cục Thuế rename. ## Scoping decision: single-member LLC only Phụ lục I of Thông tư 68/2025/TT-BTC is one 80-template appendix covering every Vietnamese enterprise-registration scenario. Per this cycle's own brief, this schema models **only Mẫu số 2** (the single-member LLC template) and explicitly does not decompose: - **Mẫu số 1** (sole proprietorship), **Mẫu số 3** (multi-member LLC), **Mẫu số 4** (joint-stock company), **Mẫu số 5** (partnership) — sibling company-type templates sharing this form's overall shape but each adding its own member-list/founding-shareholder-list companion forms (**Mẫu số 6-9**) that structurally cannot apply to a one-owner company. Confirmed by direct comparison: Mẫu số 3's own text (Part 1, pp.30-38) is near-identical to Mẫu số 2's except its owner section is replaced by a member list reference, matching this registry's expectation. - **Mẫu số 10** (Danh sách chủ sở hữu hưởng lợi của doanh nghiệp) and **Mẫu số 11** (Kê khai thông tin để xác định chủ sở hữu hưởng lợi) — the beneficial-owner-detail companion forms Mẫu số 2's own footnote 14 references by number ("...thì kê khai theo Mẫu số 10 Phụ lục I ban hành kèm theo Thông tư này") without reproducing. Disclosed only as a conditionally required document (`beneficialOwnerDeclarationForm`), per this registry's `vn/gdt` precedent (its own Phụ lục 02-1/BK-QTT-TNCN disclosure) for a companion form referenced by number but not reproduced. - **Household-business-conversion and social-protection-establishment/ fund-conversion sub-blocks** (each printing roughly 10 further fields: predecessor registration certificate number/date/place, predecessor tax code, predecessor address, predecessor owner/representative identity and legal-document details) — triggered only by the narrow `household_business_conversion`/`social_fund_conversion` values of `establishmentStatus`. Disclosed only in prose (this schema's own `predecessorEntityName`/`predecessorEntityTaxCode` fields cover the common denominator across the broader division/spin-off/merger/type-conversion paths, but not these two narrower conversion dossiers), matching this registry's `it/agenzia-entrate/modello-730` precedent for deferring a granular conditional sub-block rather than fully decomposing it. - **Multiplicity beyond one** for the legal representative(s), the organizational owner's authorized representative(s), the director, and the chief accountant. The form itself allows repeating each of these blocks (footnote 9: "Ghi thông tin của tất cả người đại diện theo pháp luật trong trường hợp công ty có nhiều hơn 01 người đại diện theo pháp luật"); this v1.0.0 schema models one bounded instance of each, per this registry's own bounded-repeating-group convention (no `"type": "array"` field exists anywhere in this registry today — confirmed by `grep -rn '"type": "array"' registry/`, zero matches). - **Non-primary business lines.** The source prints an unbounded STT/Tên ngành/Mã ngành table; only the row marked "chính" (principal) is modelled as its own field (`primaryBusinessLineName`/`Code`). - **Per-row percentage columns** on the charter-capital-sources table (Nguồn vốn điều lệ) and the contributed-assets table (Tài sản góp vốn) — only each row's amount is modelled; the source's own percentage column is not separately captured, a disclosed simplification for field-count economy given this schema's already-large scope. ## Judgment calls 1. **`ownerType` is a synthesized selector field, not itself a printed checkbox.** The source prints two alternative fill-in blocks ("a) Đối với chủ sở hữu là cá nhân" / "b) Đối với chủ sở hữu là tổ chức") with no explicit yes/no indicator distinguishing them; `ownerType` is needed to gate which block's `requiredWhen` conditions apply. Disclosed here as a judgment call, in the same spirit as `vn/gdt`'s own `declarantRole` field (itself keyed off which of two signature blocks is used, though that case did have a printed either/or choice). 2. **Personal contact/permanent-residence addresses are collapsed to a single free-text field** (`registrantContactAddress`, `registrantPermanentResidenceAddress`, `ownerContactAddress`, `ownerPermanentResidenceAddress`, `ownerOrgHeadOfficeAddress`, `legalRepresentativeAddress`, `legalRepresentativePermanentResidenceAddress`) rather than broken into the same four structured sub-fields (street/ward/province/country) the source prints. `headOfficeAddressStreet`/ `WardOrCommune`/`Province` — the company's own single most important registered address — is kept fully structured instead. This asymmetry is a disclosed field-count-economy decision: this form prints five distinct address blocks (registrant, owner-individual, owner-organization, legal representative, head office), and fully structuring all five would have added roughly 12 more near-duplicate fields without adding structural insight beyond what the head-office address already demonstrates. 3. **The three "no personal ID number" fallback blocks** (for the registrant, the individual owner, and the legal representative — each printed near-verbatim on the source at pp.64, 68-69, and 72 respectively) are modelled as optional fields with no `requiredWhen` gate, rather than invented negation logic against the corresponding `*PersonalIdNumber`/ `*IdNumber` field. The Condition grammar (`spec/v0.3/govschema.schema.json` `$defs/conditionLeaf`) has no "field is absent" operator, and this registry's own `notEquals`-empty-string-absent-field-bug precedent warns against faking one with `notEquals: ""` against a field that could legitimately be empty. Since each of `registrantPersonalIdNumber`, `ownerPersonalIdNumber` (when `ownerType` is `individual`), and `legalRepresentativeIdNumber` is itself modelled as required (or `requiredWhen`-required) in this schema, the fallback block's own triggering condition ("no personal ID number") never actually arises under this schema's own mainline modelling — so leaving it optional and undisclosed-by-gate, rather than fabricating a rule, is the more honest choice. The two `documents[]` entries that reference this same condition (`legalDocumentCopies`, `investmentRegistrationCertificateCopy`) were likewise de-conditioned for the same reason after an initial draft incorrectly used `notEquals: ""` against `registrantPersonalIdNumber` (a static-required field, making the condition trivially always-true — caught and fixed before this document was finalized) and against `ownerInvestmentCertificateProjectCode` (a genuinely optional field, which would have reproduced the exact bug this registry's own memory warns about). See the `documents[]` entries themselves for the corrected prose-only disclosure. 4. **`authorizedRepresentativeDelegatedCapitalAmount`/`Percentage` are kept as genuine fields, not collapsed away**, despite belonging to a table the source allows to repeat across multiple authorized representatives, because for a single-member LLC with exactly one bounded representative instance (this schema's own scope) the percentage is always 100 and the amount always equals `charterCapitalAmount` — a fact worth keeping visible in the modelled data rather than only in prose, following `vn/gdt`'s own convention of not fabricating a derived-value constraint the source itself does not print as a checkable arithmetic instruction, while still surfacing the value. 5. **`fiscalYearStart`/`fiscalYearEnd` use a `DD/MM` string pattern**, not a `date` type, since the source's own chỉ tiêu 10.6 prints only a recurring day/month pair with no year ("Áp dụng từ ngày...../..... đến ngày...../....."), consistent with a fiscal year that recurs annually rather than pinning a single calendar year. 6. **Money fields use `type: "number"` with only a `minimum: 0` constraint**, matching `it/agenzia-entrate/modello-730`'s and `vn/gdt`'s own convention of modelling a currency amount as one decimal number. 7. **`predecessorEntityTaxCode` uses the same `^[0-9]{10}(-[0-9]{3})?$` pattern** as this registry's other Vietnamese tax-code fields, but `ownerOrgRegistrationNumber` is left as free text (`maxLength` only), since the source itself prints it as "Mã số doanh nghiệp/**Số Quyết định thành lập**" — an establishment-decision number is not guaranteed to follow the 10-digit tax-code format. ## Conformance test run Two mock valid scenarios were built from this schema's own field inventory and checked with a purpose-written script (`validate_instance.mjs`, following this registry's own established pattern from `vn/gdt`'s and other prior cycles' verification records: compiles `schema.json`'s `fields[]` into a JSON Schema draft 2020-12 document checked with `ajv` (`ajv/dist/2020.js`, since this sandbox's cached `ajv@8.20.0` requires the explicit 2020-12 entry point rather than the package's default export), plus a from-scratch evaluator for the shared Condition grammar that checks both `fields[].requiredWhen` and every `documents[]` entry's static `required`/`requiredWhen` status against a `documents: [{id, provided}]` array — checking `documents[]` requiredness explicitly, per this registry's own conformance-checker documents-blind-spot postmortem): ``` $ node validate_instance.mjs schema.json individual-owner-new-establishment.json Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: PASS $ node validate_instance.mjs schema.json organization-owner-type-conversion-with-beneficial-owner.json Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: PASS ``` The two scenarios deliberately exercise different branches: the first is an individual owner registering a brand-new single-member LLC (VAT method and social-insurance method both required, per `establishmentStatus == new_establishment`); the second is an organization owner registering via a type-conversion from a pre-existing multi-member LLC, with an authorized representative, a Members'-Council-vs-Company-President choice (`company_president`), a beneficial-owner declaration, and neither VAT method nor social-insurance method populated (both correctly inapplicable under this schema's own `requiredWhen` gates for a type-conversion establishment). **Mutation controls** — four negative fixtures, each independently targeting one distinct validation rule and producing exactly one error: ``` $ # mutation-control-missing-required-field.json: 'companyName' (required: true) removed Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: FAIL - (root) must have required property 'companyName' requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: FAIL $ # mutation-control-personal-id-pattern-violation.json: 'registrantPersonalIdNumber' set to 'ABC12' Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: FAIL - /registrantPersonalIdNumber must match pattern "^[0-9]{12}$" requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: PASS OVERALL: FAIL $ # mutation-control-missing-conditional-type-conversion-reason.json: establishmentStatus is $ # 'type_conversion' but 'typeConversionReason' (requiredWhen establishmentStatus equals $ # type_conversion) removed Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: FAIL - field 'typeConversionReason' is required (requiredWhen matched) but not provided OVERALL: FAIL $ # mutation-control-missing-beneficial-owner-document.json: 'hasBeneficialOwner' set to true $ # but documents[] does not include a provided 'beneficialOwnerDeclarationForm' entry Static (required/type/pattern/enum) validation: PASS requiredWhen/documents[] conditional validation: FAIL - document 'beneficialOwnerDeclarationForm' is required (requiredWhen matched) but not provided OVERALL: FAIL ``` The last two mutations specifically exercise `fields[].requiredWhen` and `documents[].requiredWhen` respectively (as opposed to the plain static- `required`/pattern cases in the first two) — a validator that only checks static `required: true` fields/`type`/`pattern` and ignores conditional `requiredWhen` rules, or that ignores `documents[]` entirely, would incorrectly accept these two fixtures. Both meta-schema validators were run against the finished document and pass clean: ``` $ node tools/validate.mjs registry/vn/dangkykinhdoanh/dang-ky-doanh-nghiep-tnhh-mot-thanh-vien/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/vn/dangkykinhdoanh/dang-ky-doanh-nghiep-tnhh-mot-thanh-vien/1.0.0/schema.json 1/1 document(s) passed. $ node tools/validate-ajv.mjs registry/vn/dangkykinhdoanh/dang-ky-doanh-nghiep-tnhh-mot-thanh-vien/1.0.0/schema.json ok registry/vn/dangkykinhdoanh/dang-ky-doanh-nghiep-tnhh-mot-thanh-vien/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 (370/370, then 371/371 after this document was added) 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. ## Field/document counts - **126 `fields[]`**, spanning: filing header (3), registrant identity (13), establishment status (4), company name (3), head office (14), business lines (2), owner — individual and organization paths, authorized representative, organization model (35), charter capital/sources/ contributed assets (16), legal representative (14), tax registration (19), social insurance (1), beneficial-owner declaration + closing signature (2). - **7 `documents[]`**: `companyCharter` (always required), `legalDocumentCopies` and `investmentRegistrationCertificateCopy` (disclosed in prose, not gated), `authorizedRepresentativeAppointmentDocument` (requiredWhen `ownerType` is `organization`), `beneficialOwnerDeclarationForm` (requiredWhen `hasBeneficialOwner` is `true`), `socialGoalCommitment` (requiredWhen `socialEnterprise` is `true`), and `signatureDeclaration` (attestation, always required). ## Vietnam's remaining verticals Vietnam now stands at **3 of 6 verticals** (Passport, Taxes, Business Formation). DMV and Visa remain open, unscreened-or-weak backlog candidates from the GOV-2404 cycle. National ID was confirmed a dead end in the GOV-2411 cycle (in-person/biometric CCCD issuance only, no downloadable form) and remains closed to future scouting absent a new lead.