My suggested policy would just be that what's signed on the scorecard is the official result unless a) it is obviously off in the benefit of the competitor, e.g. my previous example about a 9.98 becoming a 4.98, or if a digit seems mostly like a better thing (i.e. a 2) but is slightly ambiguous, it must be initially changed to a 7 but then allow competitors to request for such times to be fixed.
If this happens during the competition, and the confusion made in the scorecard time is understandable (it's one thing to have doubts on if it's a 1 or a 7 vs. is it a 3 or a W - deliberate or blatant poorly written mistakes are dealt differently).
The most appropriate course of action is follow the proper regulation/guideline that pertains to this topic, and have the score taker identify the judge and ask him to clarify the caligraphy, as per guideline A7c+). Please note that this process is not supposed to be done by showing the scorecard and asking what's the time written there, to avoid bias. There are other ways to clarify the situation.
If the judge can't be immediately identified, you can treat it as an incident, by 11a1) and therefore should apply 11b). The video evidence can be used by 11f), but not as the single source of proof for the result, as just a video in itself is not conclusive, but as a complement to other information that can be gathered, like identifying the judge.
This process is not always black and white, and sometimes it's not possible to prove what happened, particularly when you can't identify the judge or they can't be found anymore. It's easy to see how important it is to properly sign the scorecard and make sure the time corresponds and they are readable numbers and signatures that are identifiable. Delegates always try to use fair judgement, common sense and most of all register what really happened, but unfortunately I'm sure there are situations where there's no way to do it in practice beyond any doubt. In these cases, or in cases where you can't obtain any evidence of the matter and sort it out, the default way to deal with the situation is the first part of A7c+).
If judges can't seem to write proper digits, there is a standard way to write the digits, widely accepted and verified:
On a related topic, I'd like to note that video evidence is not always acceptable to verify times, particularly the case where the competitor hits the reset button after solving. Since the olympics were not long ago, hitting the reset button before the judge writes down the time is like an athlete stepping out of the circle in discus throw. It doesn't matter where it landed and how far, if you step out it's DNF, regardless of video evidence or measurements taken.
