CONFUSION OVER REVISED CLRNC RESULTS IN A TRACK DEVIATION.

Narrative

ACFT X REQUESTED CLRNC TO ZZZ FROM PHL CLRNC DELIVERY. CLRNC WAS AS FOLLOWS: 'ACFT X IS CLRED TO ZZZ VIA THE PHL 7 DEP EXCEPT; CHANGE RTE TO READ; RADAR VECTORS TO STOEN INTXN; J75; GVE; AS FILED. CLB AND MAINTAIN 5000 FT AND EXPECT FL300 10 MINS AFTER DEP; SQUAWK XXXX.' THIS CLRNC WAS WRITTEN DOWN AND READ BACK CORRECTLY BY THE FO. IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED CORRECT BY THE CTLR. OUR ORIGINAL FILED FLT PLAN WAS PHL...STOEN...J75...ZZZ.... THE FLT PLAN WAS REVIEWED IN THE FMS BY BOTH CREW MEMBERS AS FOLLOWS: PHL7 DEP...DISCONTINUITY...STOEN...J75...GVE...ZZZ.... AFTER CHKING IN WITH ZTL AT FL300 APPROX 5-15 NM PAST GVE; THE CTLR ASKED TO CONFIRM OUR CLRNC. WE TOLD HIM; GVE...ZZZ.... HE ASKED WHERE WE RECEIVED THE CLRNC AND WE TOLD HIM PHL CLRNC DELIVERY. HE THEN GAVE US THE RERTE OF PRESENT POS...DIRECT GSO...DIRECT ZZZ.... HE SAID THAT SEVERAL FLTS FROM PHL-ZZZ; DURING HIS SHIFT OVER THE PAST WK OR SO; HAVE HAD THE SAME CLRNC AS WE DID AND HE WAS WONDERING WHY. WE GAVE HIM OUR FILED RTE AND ALSO OUR CLRED RTE TO DENOTE THE DIFFERENCE. HE THANKED US AND THOUGHT IT STRANGE THAT EVERY FLT HAD THIS ROUTING. BY THE TIME THAT THE ERROR WAS IDENTED; IT HAD ALREADY BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE CTLR TO CONTINUE TO GSO DIRECT ZZZ. BY THE TIME THAT WE FOUND THE PROB; WE WERE SEVERAL SECTORS LATER. THE ORIGINAL CTLR; WHO ASKED ABOUT THE CLRNC; THOUGHT PHL CLRNC WAS IN THE WRONG. I BELIEVE THAT THE FLT CREW HAD INTERPED THE CLRNC INCORRECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING. INITIALLY; IT APPEARED THAT PHL CLRNC DELIVERY HAD GIVEN US A RTE NOT APPROVED BY OTHER SECTOR CTLRS. AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW BY ME AND FO; WE FOUND THAT NOT ONLY IS GVE POSITIONED ON J75; BUT GSO AND ZZZ ARE AS WELL. THE NEW CLRNC GIVEN BY PHL CLRNC WAS ACTUALLY EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY FILED. IT WAS EXTREMELY CONFUSING AS THEY HAD SAID CHANGE RTE TO READ...AS STATED ABOVE.... THE PROB WAS AFTER GVE; CLRED AS FILED. WHICH WE INTERPED AS ZZZ. WHICH IN REALITY; IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOEN...J75...GVE...J75...ZZZ.... I BELIEVE THAT PHL CLRNC CHANGED A RTE READING FOR NO REASON. THEY ONLY CREATED CONFUSION. THE NEW ROUTING WAS THE SAME ROUTING WE HAD FILED ONLY WORDED COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. I AM STILL CONFUSED AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS SO-CALLED 'RERTE.' I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PHL CLRNC DELIVERY REFRAIN FROM CHANGING CLRNCS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE A RERTE. IN ADDITION; FLT CREWS SHOULD PAY VERY SPECIAL ATTN TO ANY RERTES GIVEN BY A CTLR AND VERIFY EVERY RTE WITH A CHART.