Honestly, the paper solution is the solution. If they could do it digitally then you pull in your expert to testify that it was changed and they pull in their

Honestly, the paper solution is the solution. If they could do it digitally then you pull in your expert to testify that it was changed and they pull in their expert to testify that it wasn't or if it was then it was done by some mysterious hacker and they shouldn't be held liable for the attempt. Meanwhile with paper, the judge and jury can look at your copy and see that it was obviously printed out and the aged for 10 years where their copy is fresh off the presses and your signature on it is either not a match at all or is suspiciously identical on every line. Even if the digital version can be technically safer, I feel the paper version tells a more compelling story that non-cryptography experts can follow along with.