LEAN ID
Redesigning Identity Verification at a Systems Level
Identity verification flows fail when nobody holds the full picture. On LEAN ID, I was that person.
YEAR
2026
COMPANY
Verimi
STAtus
Partially shipped: eID client and email OTP live; flow redesign built, not released.
Identity Orchestration
Identity Systems
eIDAS
Flow Architecture
Stakeholder Alignment
Cost-Aware UX
WHAT
Ground-up redesign of identity verification for partners in regulated industries: one unified flow, login removed as the gate, proprietary app dependency dropped
INDUSTRY
Digital identity · regulated (eIDAS, QES, GDPR)
Role
Product Designer, promoted to Senior in 05/2026: mapped the full system (flows, dependencies, partner implications, regulatory constraints, cost structure); wrote the system documentation product decisions were made from; carried the login-removal case to product leadership; coordinated open questions across legal, engineering and partner management
Team
PM, PO, architect, designer, engineering, legal, partner management, FE
TIMeline
January - July 2026
Key decisions
Made optional account creation, already running on one partner flow since 2024, the default for every partner, and took login out as the gate · repositioned identification methods as options under one selector, not separate flow states · replaced the proprietary app with the official government eID client plus email OTP, a bounded, documented security trade-off · defined the KPI framework where no measurement existed
Constraints
eIDAS and GDPR · partner contracts constraining the flow · provider cost structure · eID across iOS, Android and desktop
result
Proprietary app dropped for the government eID client + email-OTP 2FA: shipped, eliminating a recurring monthly cost · flow redesign (minimum five steps removed from every journey, login removed as the gate) built, not released · system knowledge documented in one coherent place for the first time · measurement framework defined for attribution
Login removed as the gate. Optional account creation, proven on one partner flow, is the default for every partner in the redesign.
The problem
Verimi provides identity verification, authentication and qualified electronic signing (QES) infrastructure to partners in regulated industries. In 2026 it launched LEAN ID: reduce operational cost, simplify infrastructure, redesign verification from the ground up.
The existing system had accumulated structural complexity, and the data made its cost measurable.
Measured before LEAN
Behind the numbers, four structural problems compounded. Users were split into multiple flow states inside what was nominally one flow, and one identification method sat in the flow architecture when it belonged in the method selector. Login gated every user, adding at least five steps to every journey. Partner integration requirements, prior accessibility work and data-retention rules were scattered rather than held in one place. And visibility across legal, engineering and partner management was split, so a decision in one area had unexamined effects in another.
The five domains the flow touched, and the cross-domain layer I held across them.
What I did
Mapped the full system before touching any flows.
All flow states, user types, identification methods, partner touchpoints, regulatory dependencies: the first complete picture of how the system actually worked versus how it was assumed to work. The gaps above came out of this mapping; each was documented, connected to its owning discipline, and turned into a decision or an open question with a name on it.
Identification methods as options under a single decision point, not separate flow states.
Drove the decision the data demanded: removing login.
Login gated everyone, served fewer than one in twenty, and was the single largest drop-off point. I had seen the alternative work on a smaller scale: in 2024 I designed optional account creation for a high-traffic partner flow, and completion rose again after it shipped. I built the case for making it the default for every partner and removing login entirely, and carried it to product leadership. Engineering confirmed the unified flow was implementable without breaking partner APIs. In the redesigned flow, verification requires no login, account creation is an optional final step, and returning users keep streamlined re-verification. Minimum five steps removed from every journey.
Resolved the stored-identity architecture question.
A method cut from scope early was reinstated when a major integration partner objected. I repositioned it correctly, a method inside the selector, not a separate flow state, satisfying partner requirements without reintroducing the complexity we had just removed.
Removed the proprietary-app dependency.
eID now runs through the official government client (AusweisApp Bund) on every platform, app-not-installed recovery, iOS/Android link handling, QR handoff for desktop where NFC isn't possible. Data-sharing 2FA moved from app push + PIN to email OTP. Dropping the app eliminated a recurring monthly infrastructure cost.
eID now runs through the official government client (AusweisApp Bund) on every platform: iOS/Android link handling, QR handoff for desktop.
The trade-off, made with eyes open.
Email OTP is a measured reduction in authentication strength, aligned with the security team, justified by proportionality: the stored-identity wallet was scoped to non-regulated use cases and the shared-data volume had dropped, so the risk surface the second factor protects had shrunk materially. Legal confirmed email OTP acceptable for identity-data sharing under GDPR. Documented starting point; authenticator app planned next; SMS available for partners who fund it. A conscious, bounded weakness rather than an unexamined default.
Data-sharing 2FA simplified from in-app push + PIN to email OTP: a deliberate, scoped tradeoff.
Defined the KPI framework.
No measurement existed for the redesigned flow. I defined primary metrics (conversion, drop-off by step, verifications per user), secondary (support volume by category, method mix, session length), plus data sources and baseline periods. This is the instrument that makes post-launch results attributable to specific decisions.
What changed
Shipped: the government eID client (AusweisApp Bund) replaced the proprietary app on every platform, and data-sharing 2FA moved to email OTP. Dropping the app removed a recurring monthly cost.
Built by engineering: one flow for every partner. Login out as the gate, all identification methods under one selector, optional account creation at the end. At least five steps shorter per journey.
Left behind for the team: the first complete system document, and a KPI framework to tie results to specific decisions.
The redesigned flow end to end. Login is gone from the entry point; account creation sits at the exit, optional.
Ident method selector
Method selection is now the first action, not a login: one entry point for every user, with identification offered as a choice rather than a gate.
Email-OTP entry
The second factor, right-sized: a one-time code by email replaces the in-app push and PIN. No proprietary app required.
Desktop → QR handoff
A desktop can't read an ID chip, so the flow hands off to the phone by QR. The cross-platform constraint, resolved in a single screen.
What I'd do differently
I scoped identification methods before I had partner integration requirements in front of me. One method was removed early, then reinstated when a partner objected, work a two-week requirements pass would have avoided. In a system where partner contracts constrain the flow, integration requirements are a design input on day one, not a validation step.
Holding the full picture
Complex regulated systems don't fail because of bad design; they fail because nobody is holding the full picture. My contribution was structural: the horizontal layer connecting users, regulation, engineering, partners and cost into decisions that could actually ship .