If you wanted more than the minimum it was always necessary to provide a story that passed a smell test.

Yes, and that story was, typically, "I'm a new service provider and need an IP address for my service", or "I want to provide addresses for others by becoming a LIR". It may have been written in more words, but it's not like you had to show that you had contracts with others or whatnot.

You said you had a need, and that was sufficient.

Also, if you wanted another batch of numbers you always had to explain what did with the old ones you were given, usually providing some data, much of the "bureaucracy" 2013-3 wants to eliminate.

Yep, you had to say "I've used them all up, I need more to expand my operations."

Verified: 1. Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified. 2. Swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit.

Justified: 1. Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. 2. Declared or made righteous in the sight of God.

So, please tell me how "verified operational need" is that different. If you would prefer justified or validated operational need. OK, what ever.

You have already demonstrated that it is that different, by having to bang my head with cherry-picked dictionary definitions to explain how I and others should understand what "verified" might mean, and by suggesting different adjectives.

Others have already pointed out why innocuous-seeming changes like these can have an impact in how documents are read, also off-list.

If what you really want is to stick with the old phrase and old meaning, then I think it's better to say that you don't want to change the old phrase and meaning, instead of introducting a third option.

When we get too many different suggestions for minute, superficial changes to the proposal to discuss, we quickly lose track of what the proposed change is about. And that's bad.

But maybe that's just me.