I don't follow your last point. These are identical handwritten forms in every respect except one. They have two different release dates. One that indicates the curtain rods were released on 3/24 and the other indicates they were released on 3/26. They make reference to the exact same items (i.e. 2 curtain rods) and results. Right? A 3/26 release date makes a mistake between 3/15 and 3/25 entirely possible.
But that would still leave you with an original form---------countersigned by Agent Howlett---------that makes no such mistake possible. In most people's worlds, the 24th of the month comes before the 25th. In 'solving' (quite arbitrarily) one problem, you created a whole new one.
What is "another" specimen that could have been released on 3/26 given the identical handwritten descriptions?
Specimen A: submitted 3/15, released 3/24: two curtain rods that need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints because they were found in the Depository
Specimen B: submitted late-3/23 or within a day or two of that, released 3/26: two curtain rods that have taken the place (right down to the numbers 275 & 276) of the Depository curtain rods.
These documents appear to be duplicates in every respect including the placement of the handwriting.
Yes, they differ only in the release date & time, the placement of Lt. Day's releasing signature and the presence/absence of Agent Howlett's receiving signature. The 3/26 version is the one made public (in the WC vols.)
How is Howlett "pretending" to see the curtain rods for the first time?
I was speaking to the alternative scenario created by your words: "Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods. They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony."
If that were the case, then Agent Howlett would be both the man who submitted them to the lab AND subsequently pretended to be seeing them for the first time in the Paine garage.