You're overthinking it. If there's any confusion, it will go to court, and reasonable humans will decide that, actually, the form being in a filing cabinet in the basement isn't actually reasonable.
> reasonable humans will decide that, actually, the form being in a filing cabinet in the basement isn't actually reasonable.
Like how multiple courts (up to the Louisiana Supreme Court) ruled that it was reasonable that when a suspect said "I want a lawyer, dawg." that police interpreted it as him asking for a canine who had been admitted to the bar, and since they couldn't find one, he had not made a valid request for counsel, and so they were free to continue to interrogate him without one, and not be in violation of his rights?
Or how about SCOTUS ruling that in order to invoke your right to remain silent, you actually have to state that you are doing so specifically, and that merely remaining silent doesn't mean you are ... remaining silent?
We have an epidemic of overly-textualist, conservative courts living in an alternate reality.
Now only are these people unreasonable, they strive to be as unreasonable as possible, in order to project their political will of stopping progressivism, whatever that may mean to them.
Plenty of them are in the business of stopping regulation purely for the sport of stopping regulation, meaning regardless of what the regulation is.
Like how multiple courts (up to the Louisiana Supreme Court) ruled that it was reasonable that when a suspect said "I want a lawyer, dawg." that police interpreted it as him asking for a canine who had been admitted to the bar, and since they couldn't find one, he had not made a valid request for counsel, and so they were free to continue to interrogate him without one, and not be in violation of his rights?
Or how about SCOTUS ruling that in order to invoke your right to remain silent, you actually have to state that you are doing so specifically, and that merely remaining silent doesn't mean you are ... remaining silent?
That kind of reasonableness?