Why is the platform showing "Needs Review" or "Force Match Required" or "Sign Off Required" when every check passed?
These are deliberate review gates for the Compliance Officer triggered by attached Customer Authorisation Form.
They're deliberate review gates for the Compliance Officer. Common triggers:
- Name variance. The matched name on the ID document differs slightly from the entered customer name (middle name present on licence but not on entry, hyphenation differences, transliteration of non-Latin characters). The system surfaces these for human judgement rather than auto-passing.
- Customer Authorisation Form (CAF) attached. Any transaction with a CAF goes through explicit CO sign-off because the CAF carries legal weight beyond the ID match.
- Supplementary documents uploaded. Where a manual VOI, trust deed, POA or other supporting document is on the transaction, sign-off is required to confirm the document has been reviewed.
- Sector-mandated sign-off. Some industry’s transactions always require explicit sign-off regardless of automated pass status - this aligns with those expectations.
If the underlying issue is a failed electronic verification rather than a review gate, see My client couldn't be verified electronically - what does it mean and what next?.
Download the step-by-step manual: Resolving "Force Match Required" and "Needs Review" - KYC-02 (PDF).
Why a transaction gets stuck at a review gate
Typical causes: conflicting ID data (the name on the captured ID doesn't exactly match the name entered at creation, or the date of birth differs slightly - could be a typo or a genuine variation needing human judgement); sign-off pending after a high-risk flag awaiting the Compliance Officer's decision; or supplementary documents (proof of address, source-of-funds, trust deed, POA) uploaded and awaiting review.
Force-matching past the review gate
An easyAML user with an appropriate role can manually force a transaction past the review gate where the underlying checks haven't met standard verification thresholds but the user has formed a positive view that their compliance obligations are met - including where two IDs for a long-known client conflict (for example a birth-certificate name versus a licence name). The override is audit-logged with the user, timestamp and reason, so the chain of custody is preserved.