Here is a copy of the transcript (starting on page 84).
Personally, I do not see where SoS Kobach questioned the validity of the previous verifications.
Unless I missed something these are the only relevant exchanges:
Kansas Hearing Transcript starting on line 20 of page 120
SECRETARY KOBACH: I would note that there is that this case similar cases have been raised in other states, and I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying certifying that the birth certificate on the website of the White House is consistent with or Im not sure I cant remember the exact phrasing but contains the same information as the certificate.
MR. BRYANT: The Information matches I think is what that letter
SECRETARY KOBACH: Information matches, yes, the information matches the one on file. One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
And at line 7 of page 126
SECRETARY KOBACH: Well, I agree with the Attorney General that it is disappointing that the legal representatives for the Obama campaign did not provide a more robust response as far as certification or other legal documents. My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table. But I understand your point, Mr. Attorney General, that the standard is going to be high regardless of whether such documents are present. If we did do that we would have potentially Monday to reconvene and evaluate whatever documentation was presented. Im merely suggesting this as an option. We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.
I didn't say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications. I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling. That's exactly what he's acknowledging when Kobach says, "One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information thats been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question," and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
If the other verifications were compelling, he wouldn't need to seek "some kind of certification." He said in what you quoted that he already inquired about that information including the MDEC letter of verification that was "in our packet." Kobach and the objections board clearly did not feel that what they aleady had was compelling. Kansas law says they are supposed to make a decision at the time of the hearing, but instead Kobach postponed any decision by the board until he could gather something more compelling. Personally, I believe they knew they didn't have a strong enough legal foundation for denying the objection as it was presented, especially in how NBC is defined, so they were trying to buy time to come up with something/anything that could get them off the hook.