HTH

Berhubung ada dua tanda tangan, dipakailah bentuk plural signatures.

Pilihan saya jatuh ke reviewed, sebab tugas sang "penglihat" bukanlah sekadar melihat, namun benar2 menelaah kecocokan (konsistensi) dan keaslian tanda tangan.

Ref:http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/news-room/news-releases/news-...
Pursuant to California election law, 3% of the signatures were required to be reviewed for verification.

IMHO.
Kalau konteksnya legalisasi, berarti notarisnya menyaksikan sendiri penandatanganannya, bukan hanya sekedar membandingkan. Kalau membandingkan dan mengesahkan, ini tugasnya Departemen Hukum & HAM.

Kalau notaris tidak menyaksikan penandatanganan, dia hanya bisa melakukan 'waarmerken.' Mendaftarkan dokumen itu dalam buku daftar dia, sebagai bukti bahwa dokumen tersebut sudah ada/tercipta pada tanggal tersebut. Untuk ini notaris tidak ada kewajiban sama sekali untuk membandingkan dan mengesahkan tandatangan.

No notary (except the cowboy) in her right mind is willing to validate authenticity of a signature just by comparing the signature with another submitted document, without witnessing the signing herself. Only Dept. of Justice would do the comparing and verifying signatures.

Witnessing the signing event and then add her seal and signature to legalize the signature is definitely in concordance with the context given: 'legalisasi.'

If the notary has never witnessing the signing event, she could only do recording. Recording in her book that the document has already created/in existence on the date of such recording. For this, the notary has no obligation to compare and verify any signature to determine its authenticity.