I started out in agreement with those who said, "Rules are rules -- no signature before leaving the tent means DQ." Painful, but simple, clear, and elegant. Like most executions.
But in reading every post on this issue, I found myself wondering why a signature is necessary. JVB says, "How do we know the score is accurate if the card isn't signed? How do we know the player even looked it over?" The simple answer is, you don't. How do you know the player looked it over and the score is accurate if the card is signed? You don't. Roberto DeVincenzo signed his card at the 1968 Masters, and it was wrong. He wasn't DQ'd -- he simply had to accept the higher score he signed for. (though had he signed for a lower score than he actually shot, he would have rightly been disqualified.)
My proposal would simplify this part of the process: Don't require players to sign their card. When the round is over, keep the same procedure you have now, with players reporting to the scorer's table. Once the card is handed to the official scorer, that is the player's statement that he or she has looked at the scores and considers them correct. Any mistakes thereafter would be dealt with the way they are now. Your act of handing the card to the scorer is your signature.
No one would ever be DQd again for this particular offense -- which, I've concluded, is too trivial for a death penalty.
Keep in mind, I'm proposing a rule change, not lenience for Michelle Wie. I'm still a "regulation Charlie" when it comes to enforcing whatever is on the books.