Your genuine customer cannot finish the selfie check. Give them a safe way forward.

Your customer has a valid ID and wants to finish onboarding. The flow asks them to make a movement they cannot reliably perform. Support tells them to try again.

Another attempt does not change the barrier. Eventually the customer leaves, or an agent invents a workaround nobody has reviewed.

The useful response is an accessible, controlled alternative. It should answer the identity question your process needs to resolve, with evidence and a named decision-maker.

Find out what the method requires

Describe each capture step in terms of the actions it demands. Can the person read the instruction, operate the control, position the device and complete the requested task?

Separate an access barrier from a temporary capture problem and a genuine adverse finding. Someone who cannot perform a gesture is not the same case as a confirmed identity mismatch.

Ask what help is needed to complete the process. Avoid collecting medical diagnoses when practical information about the barrier is enough to find an appropriate route.

Define the evidence before choosing the alternative

Write down what the step is meant to establish. Detecting a live person, comparing a face with identity evidence and establishing authority over an account are separate questions.

An easier interface does not necessarily provide equivalent evidence. A support video call, for example, should not silently replace required validation or attack checks. Have the appropriate risk owner approve the alternative and its limits before using it.

NIST's identity-proofing guidance (opens in a new tab) addresses documented exception handling for applicants who cannot complete the normal process, including people with disabilities or device limitations. It distinguishes assistance from proofing decisions. It is a useful design reference, not a claim that every fintech must use the same US assurance framework.

Keep assistance separate from substitution

A helper may explain an instruction, assist with positioning or support communication where your policy permits it. They must not supply their own face or identity in place of the applicant.

Make the boundary understandable to customers and staff. Specify which parts the applicant must complete and which forms of assistance are allowed. Give support a route to escalate uncertainty without coaching people to evade a failed check.

If an alternative needs an attended review, train the reviewer and define the evidence they must record. A sympathetic conversation alone is not an identity decision.

Make the route possible to find and use

An alternative hidden behind an inaccessible support form is not an effective alternative. Put a clear “I need help completing this check” route near the step, with information about what happens next.

Test labels, focus order, error messages and controls with assistive technology. W3C's keyboard guidance (opens in a new tab) explains the importance of operating interface functionality through a keyboard, subject to the criterion's scope and exceptions. A camera task may involve physical input; the surrounding help, navigation and choices still need attention.

Tell customers which options are actually available. Do not advertise an immediate manual approval if the review team cannot provide one. Preserve progress where the integration supports it and explain any secure expiry or restart requirement.

Use a controlled decision record

For an illustrative case, an applicant cannot complete the default movement challenge. An authorised reviewer chooses a pre-approved alternative method, checks the required identity evidence and records the outcome.

The record should explain the route used, evidence obtained, unresolved limitations, decision and any conditions. It should not misrepresent the result as a successful completion of the original method.

If the alternative cannot meet a mandatory requirement, say so internally and follow the approved escalation path. Do not create an undocumented bypass to keep the completion figure high.

Test the exception journey as carefully as the main one

Use representative participants with appropriate consent. Observe how they find help, complete the alternative and understand the result. Include the people who provide support and review.

Measure time to a useful response, repeat attempts, completed reviews and recurring barriers. Avoid treating every abandoned attempt as a disability-related event or collecting unnecessary sensitive labels.

Our drop-off guide covers general capture friction. This review asks whether customers who cannot use the default method have an appropriate route at all.

How Toden fits

Toden Workflows supports configurable verification steps. Discuss the available capture methods and result handling against your specific accessibility and evidence requirements.

Do not assume that choosing a different method establishes equivalent assurance, or that a Toden integration is automatically accessible or certified to a particular standard. Test the complete customer journey, including your own screens and support process.

Talk to Toden with the task customers cannot complete and the evidence your policy requires. That is a clearer starting point than simply lowering a threshold.