You're asking me to go beyond what I consider my remit. I had a very short time to write this, and that's one of the reasons why in my chronology I said this is how I think I see it or how it appears, and I don't know.
When I get down to the question of the signature I either look at it as a miserable farce--that there was a better way for the minister to overrule the advice of her public servants, and for some reason either she wasn't given good advice on how to do it or she did in a hurry and it was done in error--or else it was done intentionally to do what it appears to do: misrepresent the advice she was given by the public servants. I don't which is the answer there.