That's very interesting.
Do you find the truthorfiction arguments persuasive?
Or is it the fact that it was declared fake so long ago that makes it more obviously fake?
I don't think those are very persuasive arguments.
First, the fact that the header matches the header of a real GCHQ document does not prove that it has been "lifted" from one.
Real GCHQ documents also have real headers.
Secondly, the document does not confuse RNC Chair Michael Steele with MI6 agent Christopher Steele.
It refers to an MI5 agent called Michael Steele. It does not say that this Michael Steele is the RNC chair or an MI6 agent. It appears that the sole ground for believing that this is evidence of fakery is the fact that Michael Steele and Christopher Steele have the same last name, and in order to believe that this is evidence of fakery, we must presume that nobody called Michael Steele has ever worked for MI5, which is quite a strange thing for truthorfiction.com to pretend to know, and we must also believe that the document's author accidentally substituted the name of the RNC chair in place of a British agent's name. These are two assumptions that are unsupported by any evidence and appear to be willingly accepted despite their implausibility because the author wants to reach the conclusion that the document is fake.
Thirdly, the claim the the document is written in American English and has poor grammar and punctuation is not supported by any examples, nor is it at all evident to me from reading the document that this is the case. It seems more likely to me that the UK intelligence services are aware that Americans believe themselves to be inferior to the British in matters of grammar and punctuation and can be made to submit to their authority by invoking feelings of inferiority based on language habits.
Fourthly, the fact that the signature matches a signature on a document that was published later, at a time when GCHQ has been embarrassed by allegations of spying on Trump and wanted to discredit those allegations, means that they would have had a very good reason to "lift" that signature and publish a document with the same signature to discredit the embarrassing document which they need to portray as fake.
Is there any credible evidence that the document is fake?
And why is there so much groaning and name-calling associated with this topic. Am I to infer that such childish behavior is intended to serve as a substitute for genuine evidence?