Do FAA endorsements have to use the current language word-for-word? When pilots are going through the instruction process they receive many endorsements from flight instructors. It's common for a pilot to possess a logbook that has a prefilled endorsement in the back. It's also common for the logbook to use language that was current at the time it was produced, but for that language to have been superseded.

The FAA publishes and updates AC 61-65. At the current time, we're up to AC 61-65G.

My question is this. Are endorsements valid if they don't use the current language found in AC 61-65?
Here is verbiage from the FAA's AC 61-65G, appendix A, regarding endorsements. 

Also, in my view as long as the instructor's endorsement verbiage covers the essential elements in the regulation underlying the actual rquirement(s) that must be met, there are no mandatory words that must be used.  However, should a question arise regarding the action, level of proficiency, or other requirements specified by the regulation the instructor is attesting to, using the recommended language shown in AC 61-61G, appendix A, should eliminate any potential ambiguity.  

(emphasis is mine)


  The following examples are recommended sample endorsements for use by authorized 
  instructors when endorsing logbooks, or other means found acceptable to the Administrator for 
  airmen applying for a knowledge or practical test, or when certifying accomplishm
  ent of 
  requirements for pilot operating privileges. Each endorsement must be legible and include the 
  instructor’s signature, date of signature, certificated flight instructor (CFI) or certificated ground 
  instructor certificate number, and certificate expir
  ation date, if applicable. The purpose of
   this 
  advisory circular (AC) is to provide guidance and to encourage standardization among 
  instructors.