Since the purpose of my post was to show that the claim that Yogananda's signature was forged it not reasonable to ask a question such as:
If Master did sign it both ways, why did SRF have to resort to a forged version of his signature, many years after his passing.
Very simple, they probably didn't.
It's now been over fifty years since the Master's passing. SRF still hasn't produced a legitimate signature with the extra 'a'. By now, they will need to show the original, not a copy, because people don't trust them anymore.
SRF has produced a signature with the extra "a". It is reproduced in the above post, from the 1959 version of "Autobiography of a Yogi". If this version is not authentic then the burden of proof must be on those who make that claim.
It is not the responsibility of a publisher to prove that a signature is authentic, it is for their accusers to prove that it is a forgery.
I doubt if it would cost a great deal to have a handwriting expert analyse one signature, and it woiuld certainly bolster the arguments of those who claim the signature is a forgery. The fact that SRF's accusers are unable to produce any expert opinion in their favour tends to suggest that any experts who were consulted did not support the view that the signature is forged.