This may not seem like  big deal but I  have been thinking about the fact that a courier of a divorce document outside of Israel has to declare "It was written and signed in front of me." There is an argument between the Raaavad and the Rambam if a a divorce ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the Raavad and Tosphot are parallels. Because Tosphot says the reason he has to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is to be lenient. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, [Laws of Divorse 12:2] but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עגונה.  But to the Rambam there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''it was written and signed before me'' is add a "humra" extra requirement  

The main idea here is just to show that Tosphot and the Raavad fit together. I am not dealing with the Rambam except to show that he is not like Tosphot.

[This occurred to me this morning on the way to the sea, but I did not work it out completely until now,]

[it does not seem needed, but perhaps for additional clarity -there are obviously monetary issues in a ''get'' but the Rambam considers them as a collateral issue.

However I just saw Rav Shach on this subject and he sees a difference between the Raavad and Tosphot.{Laws of Divorce chapter 7. Law 1}

  

A שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ  has to declare "בפני נכב ובפני נחתם." There is an argument between the ראב''ד and the רמב''ם if a a גט ought to require verification. That is normally any document that comes into court has to be verified. [e.g, loans].So why not here? There is a difference in the reasons given for this. It seems to me that the ראב''ד and תוספות are parallels. Because תוספות says the reason he has to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם' is to be מקיל. that is--really we ought to require complete verification, but here we are being lenient in order to make things easy for her. הקילו משום עיגונה.  But to the רמב''ם there really ought to be no requirement to verify the validity of the doc since this is not a case of laws about money and also because she would not ruin her second marriage by forging a divorce. So having to say ''"בפני נכב ובפני נחתם'' is add a חומרא extra requirement  

שליח הגט בחוץ לארץ צריך להכריז "בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם". יש ויכוח בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם אם גט צריך אימות [קיום]. בדרך כלל כל מסמך שמגיע לבית המשפט צריך להיות מאומת. [לדוגמה, הלוואות]. אז למה לא כאן? יש הבדל בסיבות שניתנו לכך. נראה לי שהראב''ד (הלכות גירושין י''ב הלכה ב') והתוספות מקבילים. כי תוספות אומר שהסיבה שהוא צריך לומר ''"בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" היא להיות מקיל. כלומר - באמת צריך לדרוש אימות מלא אבל כאן אנחנו מקילים כדי להקל עליה משום עיגונה. אבל לרמב"ם באמת לא צריך להיות דרישה לאמת את תקפות הגט שכן אין מדובר בדיני ממונות וכן משום שהיא לא תהרוס את נישואיה השניים בזיוף גט. הצורך לומר ''בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם'' הוא הוספת דרישה נוספת

I might add here that I heard from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [a rosh yeshiva at the Mir] that there is קניין אישות וקניין כסף in acquiring a wife. [there are monetary obligation for both husband and wife.] so the Raavad here is going like this idea\that since there are monetary obligation in a divorce--like giving the ketubah-so the document does need validation.