Complete review context
Keep required evidence and session references connected to the case.
Video verification & KYC · AI workforce
Identity verified on video with the evidence retained, for onboarding that has to satisfy an auditor.
Trusted by teams at
What better looks like
These are the intended outcomes to validate for your deployment. Judge the employee by the work completed and the exceptions handled, not by conversation volume alone.
Keep required evidence and session references connected to the case.
Flag missing, conflicting or unreadable information for review.
Record the authorized reviewer and decision state separately from evidence collection.
The evidence standard
Measure the pilot against agreed completion criteria and verify each outcome in your systems.
Verification case: A review decision with a traceable basis.
Required items and session references linked
Authorized reviewer assesses the required evidence
Decision and rationale saved to the case
Verification decisions stay with authorised reviewers; evidence and rationale are recorded with the case.
| Outcome to validate | Evidence that supports it | What is not sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence collected | Required items and session references attached to the case. | The session ended successfully. |
| Review complete | Authorized decision and reason recorded against the applicable checks. | An upload or a face on screen treated as verified identity. |
| Exception owned | Unresolved checks and next reviewer explicitly assigned. | A generic retry message without follow-up ownership. |
Your baseline
Separate session completion, evidence completeness, review completion and decision outcomes. Evaluate incomplete and conflicting cases; do not infer accuracy or regulatory compliance from completion rates.
The workflow
See the employee’s actions, the record it prepares and when a person takes ownership.
Neha · AI employee
Conversation
I received an alert about a transaction I don’t recognize.
Alert case
Illustrative scenario, not live product data.
Put a role behind the outcome
Choose a pre-built role, then configure its knowledge, supported actions and limits for your environment.

Fraud Analyst
Explore a related verification role; scope video and KYC requirements as a custom configuration.
Custom role
Design a responsibility around your outcome, systems and exception rules. Agree the evidence that will establish completion before adding channels or expanding autonomy.
Make the outcome supportable
A credible pilot needs the right source records and clear boundaries. Review the proposed scope with the owners who will operate and assess it.
Confirm the actual video provider, identity-check services, evidence storage and review system. Availability of recording, liveness checks or document analysis must be established for the proposed configuration.
The related Neha simulation demonstrates transaction-verification routing, not a live video-KYC implementation. Identity decisions and regulatory requirements need an approved review process; no camera or biometric analysis is implied by this page.
Before the first call
Share anonymized examples, the current outcome definition, baseline measurements and cases that went wrong. Agree the test cohort, observation window and release criteria. Keep unresolved and failed cases visible in the evaluation.
Video verification & KYC questions
Video KYC verification is a workflow an AI employee owns from identity capture through to retained evidence, for regulated onboarding that has to satisfy an auditor.
No. It is Neha’s related transaction-verification example, showing record capture and escalation. A video-KYC workflow needs a separately scoped experience, checks, evidence and review process.
This page makes no such availability claim. Confirm the required providers, supported checks and integration before implementation.
No. Session completion and evidence collection are different from a reviewed identity decision. Define the required checks and who can approve the result.
No compliance certification is asserted here. Your responsible teams must review the actual configuration, handling of sensitive data and applicable requirements before launch.
Agree a baseline and completion criteria for the workflow. Compare outcomes using your source records, including verified system changes, human review and unresolved cases.
Both. Start with a pre-built responsibility shown here, or design a custom role around your outcome. In either case, scope knowledge, system access, permitted actions and exception ownership before launch.
Bring the target outcome, baseline records, representative requests and exceptions, required systems and an accountable owner. Agree success criteria and data-handling requirements before testing. Timing depends on access, integration and review work rather than a universal launch promise.
Confirm the specific systems, API operations, access requirements and channels with the implementation team. The categories here are a scoping guide, not a native-integration guarantee. Test failure handling and result verification as well as successful interactions.
Customer reviews
Bring one responsibility and the records that define success. We’ll scope the employee and the evidence needed to evaluate it.