Okay 3rd or 4th reading ... I do not think you will ever get an answer, Carla.
Agreed, John Henry married Scott's mother in a timely fashion in 1903 and Scott was born in 1907 and for some reason Scott was registered at birth as a FIKE (his mother's LNAB) and went through his like as a FIKE despite the SEEMING indication John Henry was his reputed father (the dates, the dates) ...
To say you need a Y-DNA study for Scott seems in order at this point if you intend to pursue the answer to this puzzle -- my knowledge of DNA is quite limited but so far as I know you would need a male descendant of John Henry and a male descendant of Scott.
You'd need that from each of them in the event John Henry is NOT the bio father of Scott never mind what the dates indicate because that will also need to be established
On the whole I do not recall ever hearing about a Law that says the reputed father's LNAB becomes the required LNAB for the child -- I do recall there is a Law (I think) that required a base born child take the mother's LNAB as its own LNAB ... but that may have been by custom and not by Law
I do know modern cases where the LNAB for the base born child was not that of the mother but that of the bio father