Topic starter
22/06/2026 9:53 am
TL;DR: The practical issue is not the certificate itself, but what assurance thresholds now mean for identity verification, compliance, and fraud controls across customer and business onboarding, according to SumSub, whose person and business verification modules have reconfirmed eIDAS 2.0 High Level of Confidence certification, covering Auto Identification, Video Identification, e-ID Verification, KYB Verification and a Fully Automated eMRTD module for regulated onboarding in Europe.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SumSub: “Sumsub recertified under eIDAS 2.0 with a High level of confidence for Identity and Business Verification”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams use high-assurance identity certification in onboarding governance?
A: Use it as one input to onboarding design, not as a blanket trust decision.
Q: Why do automated document checks still need governance after certification?
A: Because certification does not remove the need to understand what the automation proves and what it merely infers.
Q: What breaks when person and business verification are governed separately?
A: The onboarding decision becomes fragmented.
Practitioner guidance
- Map onboarding risk to assurance tier Align customer and business onboarding flows to the assurance level actually required by the transaction, sector, and jurisdiction.
- Separate automation from evidentiary trust Treat automated eMRTD reading as a control component that still needs traceable evidence, exception handling, and fraud review rules.
- Unify person and business verification governance Design one onboarding governance model that covers natural persons, legal persons, AML checks, and qualified signature journeys together.
Bottom line: The article is really about assurance thresholds in regulated identity verification, not just a certification badge.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
22/06/2026 10:31 am
Assurance certification is becoming a governance control, not a marketing label. In regulated onboarding, the question is no longer whether a verification product can process an identity request, but whether its assurance level is defensible under audit and fraud pressure. eIDAS 2.0 High Level of Confidence creates a common language for that scrutiny, and organisations should treat it as part of control design rather than procurement decoration.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should IAM teams do when a verification flow claims the highest confidence level?
A: They should tighten policy around overrides, retention, and review. A high-confidence flow raises the expectation that exceptions are rare, justified, and logged, so governance needs to focus on where the process can still fail rather than assuming certification alone is enough.
👉 Read our full editorial: eIDAS 2.0 high confidence certification raises the bar for IAM