As always for paleography, we could use more context. Are there other examples on the page or in the same person's handwriting of 'a' with the top left open like this?
Absent further context, I think "Frank Putashik" is the most reasonable reading, and I would be fully comfortable indexing it as such. He should be easily found under that spelling, and if his relatives have information about different readings, they can make that interpretation themselves.
I believe it could be Frank Putashik but I would like to be completely sure.
The only direct reference I could find to PUTASHIK is here - https://www.nameslook.com/putashik
I'd be more certain of the surname than the first name myself: logically, it should be FRANK, but it has certainly not been written as that, more like FRUNK. A Google search shows there appears to be a rare surname FRUNK - found on a few occasions in Pennsylvania.
An experienced indexer should be able to advise whether you index (literally) what you see, or what seems logical in this case.
Indexers may also substitute a wildcard for an unreadable character or index 2 possible interpretations with OR. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-index-unreadable-information
You can also check your reference images for a more precise spelling. It is the final toggle on your vertical toolbar. You can go forwards or backwards 5 images. And it's Frank Putashik. I've done too many signatures of this type.
That's the sort of response I would like to see more often here!
No, it doesn't look at all like "Frank" (note the "a" in PUTASHIK in comparison), but the usual response from experienced indexers is to index exactly what is seen / written in the record. Most unusual to see common sense override a more pedantic response.
However, given the lack of complete clarity here, I think the response from @Áine Ní Donnghaile should be regarded as "Best Answer". (Use of the OR option, or use of a wildcard - viz. Fr*nk)
Considering I've done tens of thousands of signatures just like this one over the last eight years, it's Frank.
Austin has already gone with the best answer. It's not up to you to decide what the best answer is. I'm curious. Do you index at all? Or do you just come here to tell us experienced indexers what's best?
Not arguing with you at all (well, I'd be 99% sure it's Frank). But that's not my point. I've argued here on numerous occasions on how this sort of issue should be responded to and have always had my views rejected on the basis of the "index what is recorded" approach. All I'm saying is that your aaproach is far more helpful than the frequent advice (especially with regards to PI) that unless an example does not comply 100% it's best to leave the name / data field blank. As a researcher, I want the indexed records to act as finding aids - not to be indexed in such a way that makes it more difficult for me to find them.
No worries Paul. Half the time the poster marks his/her own comment as Best Answer.