I wouldn't be so brusque here.
I agree with FBagnato123 (although it could have been said differently) that one should follow the lender's rules unless they call for an probable illegal or unethical act (such as backdating documents or providing 'extra' notarized acknowledgements). But it's important to understand, "Why?"
The world of banking is remarkably strange. In what other business do staffs virtually have a grand mal seizure if documents are signed with the wrong ink color (which used to affect whether a document could be scanned or copied). It helps to realize that they have their own job to do, and their own bosses to whom they answer.
Bank policy manuals, underwriting standards, procedures training, counter-party rule and audit guidelines are just a few of the things which affect how document must be executed, and the consequence of improper execution.
For example, if the signature date and the note date conflict, the bank may be 'out of faith' (unprotected by collateral) on the for a period of days. It may not sound like a big deal, but it is.
Capital, notes receivable and collateral all affect the solvency and reserve requirements for loan portfolios and a lender. If an audit detects inadequate capitalization, even if by $0.01, at any point in a loan lifetime, the penalties can be devastating.
A loan portfolio having insufficient cash reserves may become ineligible for sale to investors or for certain security agreements (e.g.: default swaps, etc.). The loss of the security agreements further increases the reserve requirement, further increasing the shortfall.
At the bank level, failure to meet the requirements of the Fed, Treasury or Comptroller of the Currency or state regulators can be equally damaging. Huge fines/penalties can be assessed and a bank can even lose its charter (ability to conduct business).
When I was a Citibank VP, I faced disciplinary action for calling a colleague back with critical information, one day before my vacation ended. I may have thought I was doing a 'good thing', but federal law and audit requirement required officers to take at least a single, 2-week, zero-contact vacation annually (to allow certain frauds to be discovered). My desire to 'go the extra mile' unintentionally put the bank in violation of the rules (I got away with just a warning for that incident).
So, it's better to follow the instructions exactly; if you feel that something is 'off', discuss with the signing agency/settlement agent/lender/etc. before contradicting instructions. Remember, they're paying you to perform a service as they require it done.
Hope this helps,