The Nevada LLC formation packet is the model to study. Its template,
templates/forms/united_states/nevada/state/nv__llc_formation.md, asks canonical states like person__client,
entity__company, person__registered_agent, custom_single_choice__management_structure, and
people__managing_members. Its re-authored field layer,
templates/forms/united_states/nevada/state/nv__llc_formation.fields, uses those same state paths as PDF field names.
That is the contract: the common question bank gives the questionnaire a stable vocabulary, the PDF layer uses that
vocabulary, and forms/tests/question_code_contract.rs fails if the two drift.
When you add a form, start from the real issuing-authority blank, run navigator forms fields <code> to read the field
names off the exact bytes, map only the fields the questionnaire can answer, and leave payment-card or staff-only
acceptance fields unmapped. Then run the form tests before you open the issue or PR:
cargo test -p forms
cargo run -p cli -- validate templates