what? no, you don't need to run both !
you don't understand what these are doing.
Simple signature patcher return to hbl : Patch signatures and return to HBL (does it even faster than return to sysmenu)
Simple signature patcher return to sysmenu : patch signatures and return to sysmenu (does it faster than mocha)
(pick ONE only, based on where you want to go after patches are applied. The name is implying what it's actually doing, I thought it was easy to understand)
Mocha : patch signatures and return to sysmenu (SAME as "simple signature patcher return to sysmenu", except it's extra longer to load, and has extra option the user will have to deal with)
haxhi : patch signature and return to sysmenu, has reload OS always applied.
cbhc : patch signatures and return to sysmenu, has reload OS always applied.
once the signature are patched, you don't need to run another signature patcher tool, except if you disable "reload OS" option and goes to console settings.
ALL these are doing one simple thing : patching the signature check and region free.
What differentiate each of them is the extra features:
Mocha : adds redNAND feature
haxchi : adds forwarding to homebrew using config.txt
cbhc : let user autoboot other things instead of patching signature check and launch sysmenu
if you want a "easy sysNAND CFW using mocha", you'd choose "simple signature patcher return to sysmenu" to achieve the exact same result, faster.
but, you can use Mocha instead, the user will have to deal with a menu and selecting options.
The only advantage to Mocha over sigpatcher is that it has an option to keep signature patches enabled when visiting console's settings (as long as you don't disable that option from your guide).
if you disable it, or if you choose to use sigpatcher, then you'll have to inform the user that visiting the settings will delete all temporary system patches and they will have to run the browser hax again.
I might sound harsh now, but that's what I think :
it's nice to want to help and write guide for others, but before doing so, anyone wanting to help should learn and know what they are talking about.
it makes me think about all these youtube tutorial written by noobs just because they successfully did something without understanding it.
sometime, it can be dangerous to other people.
your guide is not dangerous, so I'm not against it. Like I said, it's your guide, users will choose if they want to follow it or not, it's just "yet" another unnecessarily long guide, but they will not know if you know what you are explaining or not.
You did it with mocha because you didn't know about simple signature patcher, that's okay. you use what you know and I'm fine with that.
I was just giving my opinion to make it simpler and more logical.
If you, or any other user, take time to read and want to talk about all the suggestions I gave you, which I think make sense and can help a lot of people (isn't it the purpose of a guide?), I'll be there. (maybe not right away, but I'll always help)
I think talking about something and providing suggestion and opinion is what help improve anything.
What would even be good is if "noob" who followed the guide tell us what they thought about it, if it was easy and understandable.
after following mattkimura's guide, people still have a lot of questions. it's easy and short, but let the user with more questions than answers.
