{
  "id": 15959509,
  "title": "Stop Building Dumb Friction Into B2B Compliance",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/21/stop-building-dumb-friction-into-b2b-compliance",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-10-21T21:44:37.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "HackerNoon",
    "slug": "hackernoon",
    "url": "https://hackernoon.com/stop-building-dumb-friction-into-b2b-compliance?source=rss"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Compliance managers often spend hours navigating government websites and internal databases to verify information that their own company already possesses. This tedious process can delay legitimate transactions as companies scramble to collect evidence. While it may seem like these rules and enforcement procedures are the root cause, the primary issue often lies in how product teams design the verification experience. Instead of simply adding more steps, the challenge lies in distinguishing between necessary controls and unnecessary effort. Product teams should focus on identifying and eliminating what they term \"dumb friction\" – repetitive data entry, confusing document requests, disconnected portals, and vague \"under review\" statuses. Smart friction, on the other hand, applies controls only when relevant, reuses reliable evidence when permitted, and provides clear explanations of what happens next. This distinction is crucial because compliance is not a single-screen process; it's a decision-making journey involving the business, the case operator, and the people who must later understand or audit that decision. While some verification steps are necessary to prevent issues like impersonation, money laundering, sanctions violations, or fraud, they should never be so convoluted that users have to guess why a check is in place or how to proceed. The Financial Action Task Force's guidance on digital identity advocates for a risk-based approach, emphasizing the importance of understanding the reliability and independence of an identity system in relation to the associated risk. Applying this principle to product design means that each verification check should reflect the specific evidence and risk involved, rather than applying the same blanket request to every user. Rather than starting the design process with the fields teams want to collect, product teams should begin by defining the decision the organization must make and the supporting evidence. For instance, in the case of a business payment, the verification journey might include confirming the legal entity, verifying the authorized person acting on behalf of that entity, screening relevant parties, and reviewing transaction-specific details. Each piece of evidence should be clearly defined with regard to its purpose, source, freshness, confidence level, and the appropriate action to take based on its outcome. By adopting this evidence model, product teams can make the interface more intuitive. For example, if a registry result is current and acceptable for the decision, the system should not require the user to upload a scan of the same record. If the source is unavailable, the system should clearly indicate this and offer alternative methods. If a name match is ambiguous, it should be routed for review instead of displaying a generic failure. A useful request should name the required evidence, explain why it is needed, state who can provide it, and demonstrate the outcome after submission. Rather than instructing users to \"Upload proof of address,\" the system could say, \"We could not confirm the registered address from the company record; upload a recent utility bill or bank statement so an analyst can complete this check.\" To achieve a unified compliance experience, a system should consist of several key components. First, an experience layer that guides users through onboarding, payments, and case status updates. Second, an orchestration layer that coordinates queries to various sources, document collection, retries, and case routing. Third, an evidence layer that records the value or result of each verification step, including the source, timestamp, confidence level, expiry date, and permitted use. Fourth, a policy layer that applies the organization's configured rules and thresholds, with version control and jurisdiction context. Fifth, a case and decision record that stores the outcome, rationale, reviewer, overrides, and user-friendly explanations. Finally, connectors that integrate with external registries, identity providers, screening systems, internal ledgers, and document services. These components must work together seamlessly, with each source response being treated as evidence, not an automatic decision. The policy outcome should be reproducible from the evidence and policy version used at the time, and any human overrides should include a reason. Additionally, security and governance measures should be implemented throughout the flow, including role-based access control, data protection, retention policies, access logging, and appeal paths. It is essential to recognize that a compliance journey typically involves multiple users, each with different expectations for a successful outcome. The business user seeks a smooth process with minimal uncertainty, requiring clear information about required details and the validity of the payment or onboarding step. The compliance operator needs an organized queue for managing and reviewing cases, with the ability to track progress and identify bottlenecks. Lastly, the user experiencing the verification process should receive a clear, transparent explanation of the verification steps, the rationale behind them, and what they can do if they encounter difficulties. By designing for these three distinct user perspectives, product teams can create a more cohesive and user-friendly compliance verification experience.",
  "summary": "A practitioner’s guide to clearer business verification: reusable evidence, contextual checks, and a governed compliance architecture.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}