ConsentPurpose and data categories
Candidate Rights
Rights belong inside the verification workflow.
Consent · Correction · Dispute · Appeal · Human Review
A candidate can be affected by a credential verification outcome, so rights cannot be a support-ticket afterthought. Bonafide models consent/purpose, correction, dispute, appeal and retention actions directly in the case lifecycle.
CorrectionNew or corrected evidence
DisputeStatement + supporting evidence
Independent reviewHuman reviewer path
ResolutionAuditable outcome
Source-firstAuthoritative routes outrank appearanceMinimum evidenceEscalate only what can resolve uncertaintyHuman gateSerious adverse outcomes require reviewAuditableMaterial actions preserve lineage
WHAT BONAFIDE DOES
Purpose-built verification capabilities.
Each capability is a visible part of the verification workflow—not a hidden AI score.
Consent & purpose
Case-specific consent/purpose artifact linked to organization, data categories, source categories, retention policy and policy version.
Correction requests
Candidates can provide corrected data or targeted additional evidence.
Dispute workflow
A finding can be challenged with candidate statement and evidence references.
Appeal workflow
Prior decision, independent reviewer(s), rationale and changed/not-changed result remain recorded.
Retention actions
Delete/retain/legal-hold reason and execution evidence can be auditable.
Four-eyes adverse control
A confirmed material discrepancy requires the required qualified reviewer approvals; Reviewer 2 must see the supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE MODEL
Potential discrepancy is not the final outcome.
The engine may create POTENTIAL_MATERIAL_DISCREPANCY with reason codes. Reviewer 1 evaluates it, Reviewer 2 independently confirms any proposed material discrepancy, and the candidate/customer receives the configured correction/evidence path.
- Appeals use a different reviewer path where practical
- Reviewer disagreement and appeal-overturn rate become quality metrics
- B2B and B2C legal roles can differ by jurisdiction and contract
- US FCRA-style workflows are a future jurisdiction module before US employment launch—not an India MVP claim
CANDIDATE RIGHTS LIFECYCLERecorded in the case
Step 1✓
Consent & purpose
Policy version and source categories recorded
Step 2✓
Correction & evidence
Candidate can provide supporting information
Step 3•
Dispute & appeal
Independent re-review path where practical
WORKFLOW
From input to defensible evidence.
Bonafide follows the strongest available verification route and resumes only the affected lane when new evidence arrives.
01Consent recorded→
02Potential issue/evidence request→
03Reviewer 1→
04Reviewer 2 + correction→
05Appeal/final lineage
DESIGNED FOR
One evidence model. Role-specific operations.
The same underlying case can be viewed differently by institutions, employers, reviewers, operations and candidates.
Candidates
Understand and challenge evidence-based outcomes
Institutions/employers
Operate fair review workflows
Compliance teams
Audit rights fulfilment
DECISION DISCIPLINE
Unknown ≠ fake.
Unmapped issuer, new template, legacy document or unavailable source must route to uncertainty/manual verification rather than an automatic accusation.
DCS BONAFIDE · CREDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE PLATFORMEstablish what is bona fide.