The omitted part drastically alters the meaning and you just ran with it.

It does not in the slightest. I don't care what question she was answering. The statement is absolutely bone chilling in any context.

I don't find it "chilling in all contexts" at all. Organizations very often set up a single channel for information distribution to avoid confusion arising from rumours, personal opinions and speculations. "Whatever gets posted at _____ should be treated as verified info, and everything else you hear as unverified" is very common during events such as natural disasters.

Imagine that you're talking about database transactions or crypto key exchanges, instead of executive acts.

Humans, and the systems they create amongst themselves, like governments, are infinitely more fallible than hardened features of computer systems like database transactions. This is an unbelievably poor analogy.

This entire conversation reaffirms my belief that we need to require more humanities education for STEM majors.

What is being said here is basically the tautological truth that official government acts are indeed the official government acts, generally with some mechanism such as signing, publishing in an official gazette or something like that. Not that government can define reality.

Your Trump example in the other post is the most interesting because Trump actually created confusion on this point, by tweeting random stuff about acts that he then would never follow the proper channels for etc.