You got me thinking, so I read the bill. The controversial part comes from an Amendment to the AZ Senate Bill (SB 1024), which may be found here. That Amendment, offered by Rep Burges and accepted by the Senate, contains the following paragraph...
"B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.emphasis added
I suspect your assessment is correct. The amendment doesn't specify what document needs to be appended, just one that proves that the candidate is a "natural born citizen". Essentially, they're going to leave it to a court to decide what's sufficient and what isn't. That won't end well.
That's where we stand now, but plenty of people would have "standing" to get the issue to those courts.
Of course it could all be settled by the military courts, and the Supreme Court, well before 2012. At least the "meaning" issue.