KYC failure modes with Jev
Jumio-class vendors, sanctions lists, and liveness stay the system of record. Jev can ask whether the leftover narrative looks complete or internally inconsistent. It does not verify a passport and it is not a licensed KYC program.
This unofficial page is the failure modes slice of the KYC residual-text decisions pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to KYC residual-text decisions failure modes. Primary search language: KYC Jev failure modes. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Vendor attests identity; Jev only labels residual application text after structured checks. Fail closed — not a clone of KYC-vendor IA or an “AI KYC” product page.
KYC use-case context
KYC residual-text decisions breaks in product-specific ways. This page lists those modes so you can write tests — not a generic “AI can be wrong” essay, and not a rival limitations-page clone.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: KYC vendors.
Failure Modes inputs
Many failures start as contract violations (distractors, missing application narrative + vendor result summary text). Canonical shape:
{
"application": { "id": "APP-19", "narrative": "I live in Lisbon but the business is registered in Delaware for tax reasons." },
"vendor": { "id_result": "pass", "sanctions_hit": false, "country_claimed": "PT" },
"policy": { "consistency": "Flag country or occupancy claims that contradict vendor country_claimed." }
}Decision signals and actions
- Marketing “AI KYC” — Jev is not identity proofing (compare).
- Sending ID images — official models page rejects non-text state.
- Schema-safe
proceed_vendor≠ a legal finding or SAR decision. - Using Jev probabilities as the only control in an audit.
- Invented pass-rate or conversion lifts.
HTTP vs application:
| You see | Class | KYC move |
|---|---|---|
| 401 / 422 / 429 / 529 | Documented HTTP | Fix key/body or back off — errors |
| 200 + flat confidence or Noul ≈ 0.5 | Low confidence | Hold; do not open the account or treat Jev as identity proofing |
| Empty gather | Missing evidence | Skip Jev or ask “is enough information present?” |
Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” KYC residual-text decisions score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
Fail closed: do not open the account or treat Jev as identity proofing. Schema-safe answers are not factual correctness. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For KYC residual-text decisions, treat auto_approve_account as the high bar (opening an account or attesting identity). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Your canary set should include each bullet above.
- False-proceed on planted contradictory narratives (must stay below your SLA)
- Analyst override rate
- Calls skipped because vendor already failed — those are successes of the fail-closed path
Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | policy checks |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | you are here |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
If the API returns 200, is the decision good? 200 only means the call parsed. Low confidence, Noul ≈ 0.5, or a policy miss are application failures.
Where do official weaknesses live? TypeSafe’s jev-1.13 jaggedness note — distractors, arithmetic, adversarial content. We do not invent more.
Where is the rest of the KYC pack? Start with KYC evaluation and KYC decision workflow. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Can Jev replace Jumio / Onfido / our list provider? No. Keep the vendor of record. This page is leftover text triage. See Jev vs KYC vendors.
Is this legal advice or a KYC certification? No. Unofficial field notes. Counsel and your program own attestation.
What this page does not claim
- Not a substitute for KYC/AML programs.
- No pass-rate or false-accept claims.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.