Corrected version for the bold one and a different /a/.

(Does /a/ look relatively small below?)

Here is my work in progress. Any suggestions on /a/? Is it legible?

Corrected version for the bold one and a different /a/.

(Does /a/ look relatively small below?)

The way you ideally do this is, you don't tell us what it's supposed to be, you just ask to read it. :-)
That said, all of them seem entirely legible to me (in context).
But: the gaps in "k", "n" and "s" should be bigger (at least at normal sizes).
hhp
The single-story seems to gel with the rest of the logo better, as it is more open and geometric, but my vote is for the double-story since it will not be confused with an o at smaller sizes. The double-story a is a little heavier visually than the rest of the lettering, but only slightly. You asked if it looks small, but I don't see that at all, so I think you're ok there. For what it's worth, the thinner weight of the two looks much better to me, more natural.
For fun, here's the a both ways:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/gtandcanary/morebi-rounded/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/canadatype/vox/
@hrant
Good point on how I'm supposed to ask it :D
About the gaps, you're right. I had a legibility concern there too. I fear the /k/ for instance could look like "I <" when the gap gets bigger.
@_Brian
Thanks, exactly what I think about the /a/. I thought it could read as /o/.
About the size of double-story /a/, you described the problem better, that's what I'm talking about. Single-story blends much better with the rest of the letters.
Those fonts you linked are great by the way. I'll study them.
Captured from commoncrawl.org on 19 Apr 2015. original URL