Well, maybe Peter had something to do with it after all!
His version of events in short:
1) he received the paper document which mentions him, (the “strategy” document) from an anonymous source
2) he “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name”
In Peter’s telling of events, the reason the scanned document is different is because the scanned document was sent to him anonymously before he extracted the other documents from them.
How #2 was achieved, and whether it was reasonable opposition research or otherwise, is something that no doubt will lead to further speculation. Peter calls it an ethical lapse. I am not a lawyer but I suppose that much depends on the details of that.
I stand by my confidence that Peter would not be involved in making anything up, and that whatever the scanned document represents, it is not something of his own composition. But admittedly that would be awfully difficult to prove either way. He should just have left that anonymous document out, methinks, but hindsight is 20/20…