Optical scan the only reliable method?

Walldon calls out the NIST report coming on electronic voting. According to the Washington Post, it recommends both “optical-scan systems in which voters mark paper ballots that are read by a computer, and electronic systems that print a paper summary of each ballot, which voters review and elections officials save for recounts.”

In my mind, these are not equal: only the optical scan preserves a direct link to the voter’s action. Having the voter reviewing a hard-copy print-out seems very catch-as-catch-can -- hardly self-executing -- and besides, can’t the software still be programmed to print out one thing while recording another internally? Yes, it might be tripped up by the re-count – which itself will be subject to challenge for reliability – but in a close but clear race a recount probably will not happen.