No state would refuse to accept Hawaii’s document. Hawaii just insists on producing a document which doesn’t prove anything, while pointing at rules saying they don’t have to produce the real document in their possession.
As I keep insisting, Constitutional requirements are not subject to laws by congress or states, or “rules” created by the federal government courts. The ONLY thing constitutional articles are subject to is an Amendment. Unless you pull out one of those, you need to stop talking about rules inferior to the law they wish to circumvent.
Who is it who determines whether constitutional provisions have been appropriately implemented, in your opinion?
So it is, and it has axiomatic requirements. If a state said that whatever the first drunk they find to scribble on a newspaper is their "official" document, it cannot and will not be accepted under Article IV as such just because a state proclaims it.
In any case, the Axiomatic requirement of Article 2, is proof of compliance, and it need not be a document. Testimony of witness would also suffice. A videotape of the event properly documented would suffice. Proof needn't be a document, but proof is what is indeed required. If the document cannot constitute actual proof, it cannot be used regardless of a bureaucrat insisting it is the same thing. No loop holes allowed for fake documents.
Who is it who determines whether constitutional provisions have been appropriately implemented, in your opinion?
It looks like no one does, because everyone involved is so incompetent and/or partisan/corrupt.