Topic starter
06/09/2026 6:21 pm
TL;DR: Digital identity has moved past proving who someone is and into orchestrating trusted interactions across issuers, sectors, borders, and delegated authority, according to Uniken, with EUDI Wallet acceptance becoming mandatory for some relying parties from December 2027. The governance problem is now evidence, policy, and trust travel, not basic credential verification.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Uniken: “The goal was never digital identity. It was orchestrating trust.”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams govern credential acceptance in digital identity flows?
A: Security teams should separate verification from acceptance.
Q: How should security teams treat DNS in identity and access programmes?
A: Security teams should treat DNS as an upstream dependency for access, not as a separate network concern.
Q: What should organisations do when wallet credentials become mandatory to accept?
A: They should predefine acceptance criteria, retention rules, and ownership for the decisions those credentials trigger.
Practitioner guidance
- Define trust acceptance rules Separate credential validation from acceptance policy so the organisation can decide which issuers, claims, and assurance levels it will trust in each interaction.
- Record delegation evidence Require systems to capture who authorised whom, for what purpose, and under which conditions whenever one identity acts on behalf of another.
- Map regulatory evidence needs Align identity, payments, and compliance owners on what evidence must be retained for wallet acceptance, especially where regulated transactions are involved.
Bottom line: Digital identity governance is moving from proof of who someone is to proof of what can be trusted about the interaction.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
06/09/2026 6:22 pm
Identity verification is becoming a floor, not a governance outcome. The article’s central shift is that proving a credential is valid no longer settles the real question for IAM and trust programmes. The more important decision is whether the issuer, the policy context, and the delegated authority are trustworthy enough for the relying party to act. Practitioners should therefore stop treating verification as the end state and start treating it as one input into trust governance.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations know if identity orchestration is actually working?
A: Look for fewer manual tickets, faster provisioning, and, more importantly, successful revocation across all connected systems. If access removal fails in even one major application, the orchestration programme is incomplete. Strong performance shows up as consistent entitlement state, clean audit evidence, and fewer exceptions outside workflow.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital identity is shifting from verification to trust orchestration