Code:
Expert command (m for help): p
Disk 840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd: 29.31 GiB, 31474057216 bytes, 61472768 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x00000000
Device Boot Start End Sectors Id Type Start-C/H/S End-C/H/S Attrs
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd1 1009664 61472768 60463105 b W95 FAT32 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd2 * 73728 139263 65536 6 FAT16 0/0/0 0/0/0 80
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd3 1 1009664 1009664 85 Linux extended 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd5 139264 172031 32768 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd6 172032 204799 32768 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd7 204800 275455 70656 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd8 275456 776191 500736 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd9 776192 976895 200704 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd10 976896 1009663 32768 83 Linux 0/0/0 0/0/0
Partition table entries are not in disk order.
I don't have testdisk on my systems (slackware or ubuntu 18.04), so I cannot run that comparison. The point I was making is that the partition table is supposed to look messed up on the pocketbook devices. I would not be surprised if they do that as some kind of anti-cloning measure. The only difference I see between our partition tables is that my first partition starts at block 1009664 (the next block after the end of the last partition), while yours leaves a gap and starts at block 1011712. I doubt that is a significant difference. I would say that your partition table looks as expected and that you should leave it alone and not mess it up by trying to 'fix' it.