In this article, we are gently cautioning against the dominant argument of 'document scarcity' that features in op-eds and survey-driven narratives (the belief that the non-possession of any one of the IDs is the real problem underlying the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the North Indian state of Bihar). We instead point readers towards a larger conundrum, an increasing tendency of committing to 'an impossible identification' in both the SIR and the NRC (National Register of Citizenship) exercises.  We examine rare historical narratives (absent in our earlier Scroll piece) including early inclusive statements around the election process, letters around the 1951 NRC, and more contemporary election guidelines (including the 2016, 2023 manuals) but also a very recent and radical proposal for remote migrant voting technology! The Election Commission of India (EC) made all these interesting statements about how the domestic migrant cannot be persuaded to vote in their place of work, and will always want to vote in their home state, and offered thoughtful workarounds in light of this. And yet, we have this relentless SIR drive now! We also consider what we deem ghostly (under the radar) and informal identification exercises that are being implemented 'to make the SIR work' such as drawing up the family tree of voters. This is all the more deeply disturbing as instructions are being sent out, as we speak, to all the states and union territories to prepare for this exercise across India.