A319 Captain reported discrepancies in procedures and a lack of consensus between divisions on how to record and track deferred items in computer based maintenance tracking systems and the aircraft log books.

Narrative

Arrived at the aircraft 1 hour prior. I find three maintenance discrepancy items in the log book. Discrepancy items by all accounting and training require additional signatures to leave the gate; but the signatures/sign offs were all missing from the log book. Although the item had been placed on discrepancy watch in Date; there and been no subsequent signatures. The items; X; Y; Z concerned Seat 14E; 8E and 8D inflatable seat belts being worn. The third box at the bottom 'Maintenance action required' Other had 'EVERY 7 Days' written in on the line. I went back through the log book 7 days and could not find the required 'Inspection performed' signature. I called maintenance and they informed me (Contrary to XX years of training at Company) that discrepancy cards do not in fact require a signature in the log book and that it is all tracked by computers instead. Well; I logged into the computer system and in big red letters as you log in it says something to the effect of 'Paper copy is controlling.' Then went looking for the inspection and could find no evidence of it in the computer. At that point I told the mechanic that I couldn't sign the log book accepting the aircraft because the log book was not in fact correct. He called Maintenance Control and the Director told me I was wrong. I called the Duty Chief Pilot and he wasn't sure but he 'Thought' the Director was correct and that I was instructed to take the aircraft. At that point I elected to take the aircraft. I had gone up both chains of command at that point and received the same answer. So it seems that we pilots no longer can verify that an item inspection has been done. It is possible that this particular item was mis-categorized as a discrepancy item requiring a card and in fact might have been a NEF (Nonessential for flight) item or some similar No Airworthiness item; or else maybe the seats should be deferred completely until the parts arrive to repair the belts. Rapidly shifting procedures and computer programming are taking the pilots out of the safety loop of verifying that their aircraft are in fact safe to fly. While this was just a seat belt on an empty seat; if what Maintenance and the Duty Chief said is correct; then more important safety of flight checks are no longer verifiable either. If the item was in fact just written up incorrectly using a discrepancy placard then the training of the changing procedures is creating new holes in the safety net. The company either needs to make it clear that yes in fact all discrepancy items need verifying procedure signatures on paper in the logbook; or else the computer programs needs to get a lot better and more user friendly than they are.