I just did my test today 20/20 and also signed this form which the officer covered the top half of the page and I just sign on the line. He mentioned signing this confirms that everything I provided during the interview is true.
At the end of my interview yesterday I was also asked to sign a form that was covered with a paper by an officer. On the top of the box (where I was putting my signature) it was written in a small font something like "I confirm that information I provided in my application is true."
Generally I try to limit my speculation to matters I am fairly confident about, and thus I responded above that I have "no idea" what the document was.
But I can say that these observations make sense. (For some reason I did not see many of the posts here before I posted my response above.)
I have not seen a copy of the actual File Requirements Checklist in use since the copy shared in 2012. This is a confidential document which is not shared with the public . . . it does not even become part of the certified tribunal record when there is an appeal. So it is possible this is part of that or otherwise part of the form which the interviewer is making notes or comments on during the course of the interview, and thus the interviewer covers that information . . . and what the applicant needs to know is that he or she is verifying the accuracy of the information submitted.
That is, what the applicant's signature is for is stated right there, probably in small font, affirming or verifying the information the applicant has provided is accurate.
As I noted in my previous post, the interviewer should at least say what it is that the applicant is signing. BUT it is also quite likely that this is all done quite quickly, no particular emphasis or explanation beyond a cursory reference to verifying the information submitted. Most of us trust the interviewer.
Again, odds are high ALL IS WELL. But of course, again, that is dependent on the applicant having in fact provided accurate information, being qualified, and having no prohibitions.
And why would a govt official cover up a form for you to sign? I would have challenged that behaviour, right on the spot.
Rarely a good idea to "challenge" a bureaucrat simply because you do not fully understand a request.
The PI interview is just that, a Program Integrity Interview. The interviewer's role is to verify the information, from verifying the applicant's identity to verifying the applicant's supporting documents. In the course of this the interviewer is screening for any information or clue that something is not accurate or is otherwise incongruous. The interviewer does not try to trick or trap the applicant. It really is a verification of information process.
Thus, it is not a hearing.
The interview is NOT adversarial.
It would be foolish to "challenge" the interviewer. (With some exceptions. Rather unusual exceptions.)
On the other hand, the applicant may want, or NEED, to ask the interviewer to repeat or clarify something. Example: "
what am I signing?"
As I previously suggested, if and when to do so can be a bit tricky. It can be especially tricky if at first a request to repeat, clarify, or explain something does not elicit a sufficient response. Being both persistent and polite demands some tact if not restraint. But it is imperative, if at all possible, to remain polite and NOT confrontational. Pushing what is merely a program integrity interview toward an adversarial confrontation tends to be less than productive.
This can be especially challenging for an applicant if the language being spoken is not his or her first language.
Moreover, many applicants may naturally hesitate to ask that something be repeated or clarified, recognizing that the interview is in part also verifying the applicant's ability in the official language.
But it will almost always be OK to make a polite request to repeat or clarify something. Like "
what is this I am signing?"
