I am now utterly confused because before I asked for expert help, the computer came back with this explanation:

The first scenario is a better answer to the question of not adhering to the requirements of the Will Act. Here's why:

Signature by Proxy: In the first scenario, Paul is unable to sign the will himself due to a broken hand and asks Sam to sign on his behalf. While some jurisdictions allow for a proxy signature, it typically requires specific formalities, such as the proxy signing in the presence of the testator and witnesses. In this case, Sam signs in front of Paul, but the witnesses do not observe the signing, which may not meet the legal requirements.

Witnessing Requirements: The two co-workers sign as witnesses later, each in their respective cubicles, rather than in the presence of Paul and each other. Most jurisdictions require that the witnesses sign in the presence of the testator and each other to validate the will. This requirement is not met in the first scenario.

Simultaneous Presence: The lack of simultaneous presence of the testator and witnesses during the signing process is a critical flaw in the first scenario. This is a common requirement to ensure the authenticity and voluntariness of the will.

In contrast, the second scenario, while not perfect, adheres more closely to typical requirements. Paul signs the will himself, and although the witnesses do not sign simultaneously, one signs immediately, which may be more acceptable depending on jurisdictional requirements. However, the second scenario still has issues with the timing of the witness signatures, which could be problematic in some jurisdictions.

Overall, the first scenario has more significant deviations from standard will execution requirements, making it a clearer example of non-adherence.

Yet the human expert told me I should should the second scenario ---- HELP!