This is a continuation of my previous comment.

Add after C.4: “The voter has omitted his name (generational) suffix.”  For example, James Earl Carter for former president James Earl Carter, Jr..

Even with this additional statement, there are more possibilities for further reducing ambiguities, such as for compound first names (e.g., Maria Isabel) and temporary addresses (e.g., students away at colleges).

As stated before, these cause time-consuming discussions during the processing of ballots (it seems) by some intending to follow the letter of the law and by some intending to follow the spirit of the law.  By reducing the ambiguities, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law should converge.  Again, I agree that the standards for UOCAVA voters and the standards for non-UOCAVA, state prescribed voters should be the same.  Also again, if the state’s Envelope B remains codified then the code needs to be less unambiguous so that the decisions to render ballots invalid can be made consistently and in a manner that does not slow down the process (as the volume of absentee ballots has been increasing, it would be nice if the volume of discussions decrease).