KYC Questions — Nano Loan
Content and structure redesign of the KYC document submission flow (Nano Loan): screen-by-screen copy update from V1 to V2, new video or text instructions, contextual alerts, and improved Home banners.
- Company
- Aviva Crédito
- My Role
- Product Designer
- Period
- Oct 2024 – Apr 2025
Targets & expectations
Expected reduction in document rejections due to insufficient instructions. The document served as the official reference for V2 KYC flow development, aligning design, product, and engineering on a single specification.
Problem
V1 document submission screens used ambiguous copy and no differentiated help guides. Document rejection rates (home video, proof of address, CLABE) were high due to lack of preventive context before each capture.
Research
V1 flow analysis identifying friction points: technical copy in CLABE request, lack of example video before home recording, absence of global checklist. The complete evolution of 8 steps for first credit and 8 steps for renewal was documented.
Solution
Full screen-by-screen V1 to V2 redesign: initial preference modal (video/text), centralized checklist, visual example instructions before each capture, preventive error alerts, and 4 Home status banners (pending, review, correction, renewal).
Learnings
- Copy is part of the product: Changing the button text from 'Confirm photo' to 'Do you want to use this photo?' is not cosmetic — it shifts the user's mental model from 'confirming a step' to 'making a decision with consequences'. Every word in the KYC flow has a direct impact on the document rejection rate.
- The choice of instructions (video vs text) reveals user segmentation: The initial preference modal resolved a recurring design conflict: users with low digital literacy preferred video; more agile users rejected the friction of videos. Offering the choice respected both profiles.
- Documenting before/after aligned the team: The V1 vs V2 comparison table format, screen by screen, turned out to be the most useful artifact of the project — more than the Figma prototype — for engineering to understand exactly what had to change and why.