SRC CX Guidelines v1.2 DRAFT Disposition of Comments

Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX Pattern ‘P5 – Card Tray’ + CX Moment ‘Displayin g Linked Cards’ Te In CX Pattern ‘P5 – Card Tray’ and CX The EMV CTP CX Guidelines shall clearly Acknowle The entire document is a set of Moment ‘Displaying Linked Cards’, EMVCo indicate that many solutions are available to dge EMVCo’s guidelines and defines only 2 options which may be used display the 2 brands of co-badged cards, recommendations. Local legal to display the 2 brands of co-badged cards and that they are not limited to the illustrative regulations should always = Recommended ‘buttons’ + Alternative examples proposed in the Guidelines i.e. supersede design ‘radio selectors’; these 2 proposed other solutions are allowed as long as they recommendations. solutions are not indicated as examples comply with applicable regulations and with (and they seem to be defined as the only 2 best practices for mobile web applications solutions allowed by EMVCo) while they (as confirmed by the SRCWG during last are very similar and a bit old-fashioned. BoA meeting). As a reminder, buttons, radio selectors, checkboxes, toggle switch, dropdown menu… are possible alternatives which are all compliant with EU IFR 2015/751 regulation. And it seems that EMVCo may choose to present a limited number of examples, but it is not its role to impose a specific design or to prohibit certain ones. And we strongly recommend adding the ‘drop-down menu’ approach as a Recommended solution in the CX Guidelines (as proposed during last Technical Meeting). This solution offers a more light/modern experience on mobile devices (e.g. responsive design), and it seems better adapted to the dynamic update of a co- badged card display when the user changes the brand. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 1 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX ‘Technical Te In the ‘Technical Bits’ of CX Moment Add some minimum technical guidelines Acknowle EMVCo recommends sending PAR Moment Bits’ ‘Displaying Linked Cards’, it is indicated regarding the management of co-badged dge as stated in the Guidelines. ‘Displayin that “Where it is available, PAR can be cards within a C2P solution. However, EMVCo cannot mandate g Linked Cards’ used by Merchants and PSPs to match co-badged cards from different SRC Systems, allowing them to be shown as a single card" ; this seems aligned with the position of most Associates regarding the identifier to be used to match the 2 DPANs corresponding to the digitization of a cobadged card, but it seems that the CX Guidelines do not provide enough information regarding the way to use this And we propose adding the following minimum guidelines (as presented during last Technical Meeting): * both SRC Systems must be able to systematically send the PAR to the SRCI (during ‘getSrcProfile()’), * the ‘DescriptorName’ of each digitized card needs to include both scheme names or neither of them implementation of PAR. Created new heading within the Technical Bits section called “Descriptor Name” saying “It is recommended that the data element “descriptorName” has the same value populated for both digital cards.“ identifier. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 2 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX Pattern ‘Technical Te In the new guidelines regarding the way to Provide some clear guidelines/rules Accept Updated CX Pattern 5 Card Tray, in ‘P5 – Bits’ display a co-badged card in the Card List, regarding the display order and the the Co-badge card section, CX Card it seems that some necessary precisions representation of a co-badged card in the Pattern Details to reflect: Tray’ + CX Moment ‘Displayin g Linked Cards’ regarding the display order and the card representation are missing in CX Pattern ‘P5 – Card Tray’ and in CX Moment ‘Displaying Linked Cards’ / 2 ‘Card Tray’. Card List / Tray (to avoid UX/UI discrepancies). And we propose the following guidelines (as presented during last Technical Meeting): * When determining the display order of the Cards in the Card List, the SRCI shall use the most recent ‘last used timestamp’ of the 2 • “If two different last used card timestamps are provided for a co-badged card, use the most recent last used timestamp to determine the display order” digital cards (corresponding to the 2 brands) of a co-badged card (regardless of the merchant/PSP network preselection, which should still prevail). • “Display the digital card details from the selected network.” * The SRCI should dynamically update the display of co-badged cards when the user changes the brand, using the elements of the Digital Card (i.e. Card Art, Card Description, …) received from the SRC System of the selected brand (as we already 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 3 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 EA Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note CX Moment ‘Linking a card’ ‘Technical Bits’ Type of comment2 Te Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) In the previous version, the ‘Technical Bits’ section of the CX Moment ‘Linking a card’ was presented as a ‘Best Practice’, it is now indicated as ‘Required’. This feature initially defined as optional is not supported by some existing SRC System (which currently decided not to implement the optional ‘Linking a card’ functionality). observe that some of the elements provided by the 2 SRC Systems may differ). The ‘Technical Bits’ section of the CX Moment ‘Linking a card’ must still be defined as a ‘Best Practice’ (as it was the case in previous version). Note: maybe this is only an editorial error to be corrected (as this update is not listed in the Revision Log while it could have major impacts). Accept EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Agree that the feature is optional so the “Technical Bits” would only apply if you are utilizing that feature. We have reverted wording to Best Practice. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 4 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change EA CX Pattern ‘P5 – Card Tray’ Te In the CX Pattern ‘P5 – Card Tray’, the Clarify the objective of this update. following modification has been applied: And if EMVCo confirms that the figure does “Masked identifier (mobile or email not need to be updated, then it seems that associated with linked cards)” in v1.1 the guidelines should clearly indicate that has been replaced by: “Masked mobile number (mobile number both elements are needed but that a single one is displayed at a given moment. associated with linked cards) + Masked email (email associated with linked cards)" in v1.2. Which seems to indicate that both identifiers need to be displayed, while the related illustrative figure has not been updated accordingly. Note: and this update is not listed in the Revision Log. Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Accept Text in the figure was updated to: “Masked mobile number or email (associated with linked cards)". 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 5 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX Moment ‘Using a Passkey’ Te In the CX Moment ‘Using a passkey’, the The CX Guidelines shall clearly indicate that Reject Agree that there are multiple ways Related CX demo ‘Create a passkey the current proposed Related CX demos are to create a passkey, CX Guidelines (mobile)’ (+ the indication “the passkey is only examples which do not cover all demos do not reflect all created during checkout”) seems to potential EMV SRC/CTP passkey-based use possibilities. We do not want to indicate that a single flow is possible for cases and flows; and that there are several limit the potential for passkey the passkey Enrolment and that this flow passkey creation use cases, e.g. it may be service providers, so we correspond to the creation of an SRC done on a SRC System portal or during the intentionally kept the naming System passkey following a Cardholder identity verification (= Consumer verification convention more generic. authentication by the issuer of the Card passkey), or it may be done on an Issuer selected for the current transaction (cf. Claim passkey_enrolment_verification_Type = ’02 For Cardholder Verification’ in the Federated ID Token). portal or during the payment authentication (as in current Related CX demo ‘Create a passkey (mobile)’, which should be clearly renamed ‘Create a Cardholder Verification Passkey (mobile)’). Work is under discussion for additional passkey use cases to possibly include in a future version of CX guidance. This flow is interesting, but it seems more “complicated’ to deploy than the basic enrolment of a SRC System passkey ‘For Consumer Verification’ which is not described or mentioned in CX Guidelines. Also we recommend adding a first basic Related CX demo ‘Create a Consumer Verification passkey (mobile)’ describing the creation of a SRC System passkey (without issuer implication) to replace the OTP ‘for Card Listing Only’ (= ‘Consumer verification passkey’ to be used for the use case 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 6 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 EA Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 CX Te Moment ‘Using a Passkey’ Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) In the CX Moment ‘Using a passkey’ there is no clear indications regarding the different type of passkeys which may be created during a CTP operation. presented on slide 11 of the SRCWG presentation during April 2024 Tech Meeting). Add some UI samples/examples for passkeys registration and lifecycle management under the two following working assumptions: the passkey verification type is Consumer Verification, and the passkey verification type is Cardholder Verification. Clarifications and/or guidelines from EMVCo regarding the discrepancies in the User Interfaces seem necessary. Reject EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Life cycle management of passkeys will be defined by the passkey provider, thus EMVCo will not provide examples as they could vary depending upon implementation and relying party requirements. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 7 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change EA CX Moment ‘Using a Passkey’ EA CX Moment ‘Using a Passkey’ Te In some markets the C2P enrolment will Add some UI samples/examples occur through the online banking corresponding to a passkey registration application and the C2P parameters can which occurs on a passkey portal provided be managed via this channel. It would by the SRC System but reached via the make sense to address this use case by online banking application of the issuer of clarifying the role of the SRC System the concerned Card. passkey portal which is not apparent in the current UI sample. Te In the CX Moment ‘Using a passkey’, Add a ‘Technical Bit’ section in the CX there is no section ‘Technical Bits’ (while Moment ‘Using a Passkey’. this section is present in all other CX Moments). And the CX Guidelines provide no technical information regarding the technical implementation of the support of the passkeys (e.g. no reference to the SDK Methods or API Services which can be used, no link to the Flow diagram, etc…). Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Reject Passkey portals are outside of the scope of SRC, thus EMVCo will not provide examples as they could vary depending upon implementation and relying party requirements. Reject Passkey portals are outside of the scope of SRC, thus EMVCo will not provide examples as they could vary depending upon implementation and relying party requirements. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 8 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX Pattern ‘P2 - Payment Label’ + CX Moment ‘Paying with a Card’ ed We identify some editorial discrepancies An editorial review must be performed to Accept Team reviewed consistency in regarding the definitions and the different ensure consistent definitions and uses of the definitions and clarified to indicate reference/representations of the ‘Payment ‘Payment Label’ and ‘Horizontal Mark’ in the CTP icon is not needed when Label’ (defined in CX Pattern P2) and of different CX Patterns and Moments. displaying acceptance marks. the ‘Horizontal Mark’ (now defined in the CX Moment ‘Paying with a card’ point 3). E.g. - In CX Moment ‘Paying with a card’, Updates to the reproduction Horizontal Mark is defined as “Click to Pay requirements are underway to allow icon and the SRC System operating for new circumstances such as images”, while the figures show a HM not these. containing the CTP icon + ‘Payment label’ figure seem to indicate that the Payment Label consists only of ‘Credit/Debit’ indication. - In CX Pattern P3 Card Loader, the indication “Acceptance marks: ALL accepted forms of payement…” shall be suppressed as they are not shown in the loader. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 9 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX Moment ‘Paying with a Card’ ed In the CX Moment ‘Paying with a Card’ Clarify if the Click To Pay Icon must be Accept Removed reference to Horizontal point 3 ‘Horizontal Mark’, it is indicated: displayed before the supported SRC System Mark as this is not part of the Card “Consists of the Click to Pay icon and the logos in the Horizontal mark of the CX Loader screen. SRC System operating images. […] Use Moment ‘Paying with a Card’ (either by the Click to Pay icon and SRC System operating images provided by the SRC System […]". But the figures proposed for this moments have not been updated and the display of suppressing the mention to ‘CTP Icon’ in the descriptions, or by adding the ‘CTP Icon’ in the figures. Updates to the reproduction requirements are underway to allow for new circumstances such as these. the « Acceptance marks » does not seem to be preceded by the Click To Pay Icon (as it was the case in the definition of the ‘Horizontal Mark’ in the Guidelines v1.1 ; e.g. point 4 of the CX Moment ‘Verifying a Customer’ in the Guideline v1.1). 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 10 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change EA CX Pattern ‘P3 -Card Loader’ EA CX Pattern P4 OTP ed If the acceptance marks are now Remove “Acceptance marks: ALL accepted displayed alongside the Click to Pay forms of payment as determined by enabled helper image and the Credit/Debit merchant or PSP” mention. payment label, it should not be present in the background of this page anymore ed The explanations “Expanded state Suppress the repetition following the • Checkbox: option to have prompts examples. device/browser remembered at this merchant • Content: “Select to be remembered…”" Is repeated (2 occurrences). Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Accept Removed mention of Acceptance marks from CX Pattern P3 – Card Loader section. Accept Updated to remove repetition. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 11 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX P. Card loader Te Is there an official EMVCo animation resource? Also this now doesn’t seem to be a standard anymore. EA CX P. Co- badged card Te I assume that domestic schemes like eftpos will object to offering network selection. Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted What’s the reason for moving away from the animated card stack and away from a standard spinner? Provide resource (examples like CSS) Overall we support a standard rather than every PSP doing its own thing. Accept The card loader animation is available upon signing the Trade Mark License Agreement for the Click to Pay icon. Trademark Centre | EMVCo I let eftpos comment.  Acknowle dge Thank you. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 12 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change EA CX P Card tray Te Co-badged cards card network selection Alternative: buttons may be very small on mobile. Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Acknowle dge Updated bullet to indicate that display options are not limited to buttons or radio selectors. We have no plans to provide additional examples at this time. EA CX P. Capture ID & Switch ID Te Switch ID only shows one entry field Only ask for one ID item in all those flows Reject The "Identifying a customer" flow in holding either email or mobile #; whereas like Capture ID. CX Moment *allows* the consumer the “Identifying a costumer” flow in CX M asks for both; the schemes have different ways of combining the two to access a profile, so we believe that the list of cards In CX M, “Identifying a costumer” under blue bullet (1), adjust text accordingly (“and” -> “or”) to enter both e-mail and mobile. It does not *require* that both are entered. It is best practice to capture both. will be different. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 13 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX M Identifying a customer Ge Email / mobile number “Required” horizonatl bullet (1); • “To support interoperability and scalability across SRC Systems, best practice is to capture both mobile number and email.” Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted See previous comment: Another example where it says ‘both’ or ‘and’. It should only be either / or. This needs to be cleaned up at multiple locations throughout the CX guidelines. Reject The "Identifying a customer" flow in CX Moment *allows* the consumer to enter both e-mail and mobile. It does not *require* that both are entered. It is best practice to capture both. EA CX M Displaying linked cards EA CX P One-time passcode Ed Technical bits – last sentence: “To avoid duplication, the PAR value can used ..” ‘be’ missing Also, the video shows the old animation (animated card) in the end (which all the other videos don’t) Ed “Expanded state” section is present twice. Accept Good catch! Updated to include “be” in the sentence Accept Updated to remove repetition 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 14 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted EA CX M Identifying a customer Ge In the “overview” section it’s written: Email If the requirement is that either the email or Reject The "Identifying a customer" flow in / Mobile number the mobile number is entered by the CX Moment *allows* the consumer Allows the customer to enter their mobile number and email. In the “1” details section, it’s stated that CtP uses mobile or email to identify customer to identify against CtP, I would suggest to clearly state that it should be EITHER. (see comments above) to enter both e-mail and mobile. It does not *require* that both are entered. It is best practice to capture both. customer. FAQ possibility EA CX M Paying with a card Ge/Ed “Credit / Debit” payment method is not for CtP only but may also be for non-CtP schemes. PSP would not agree to only list SRC System operation images (=> advantage for CtP) An alternative would be for PSPs/merchants to offer a second “Credit / Debit” option for non-CtP schemes (which PSPs don’t seem to like) Also, blue bullet (1) Click to pay with lower caps ‘p’; search/replace across v1.2 Blue 3 Point: Remove “SRC System operating images” and allow the images of any network. And it shouldn’t say “Click to Pay icon” but “Click to Pay enabled helper image” Accept Removed reference to “SRC System operating images” indicating they are acceptance marks. Click to pay has also been updated to Click to Pay 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 15 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX M Checking for linked cards EA CX M Verifying a customer EA CX M Displaying linked cards Ge Height of (P3) part should be adjusted, since the logos were removed from the bottom. Ge 1) Height of (P4) part should be adjusted. 2) “Switch ID” link at the bottom. This was already in the CX version 1.1 but since on the “linked cards” screen the Switch ID functionality is at the top, I would suggest moving this link to the header as well to not have the “main content” moving down and be consistent for the users. Ge 1) Height of (P5) part needs to be adjusted. Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Accept Updated sizing Accept Accept 1) Updated size. 2) The role Switch ID plays during Customer Verification is different from Displaying Linked Cards. There is also no header during the Customer Verification example. Updated sizing 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 16 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX P Data Disclosur e Ge The data disclosure text mentions only mobile not email. Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Change mobile to “mobile/email”. If only one is supported, then only one should be in the data disclosure. Needs to be corrected in multiple places. Accept Reflected that the full display is an “Example”. Under content: added a bullet to reflect “actual language should reflect the identifier(s) used by Click to Pay”. EA CX M Identifying a customer Ge Click to Pay is only mentioned in the data Add Click to Pay icon somewhere disclosure. Not having the logo or Click to Pay mentioned above the text fields may be confusing for the customer why email field is displayed when card payment is chosen. Discussing this in the team, we were confused whether we were in the CtP flow already or still in a general merchant flow. Reject At the point of Identifying a Customer you are still in the general merchant flow which is why there are no Click to Pay identifiers. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 17 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) Proposed change EA CX M Identifying a customer EA CX P One- time passcode EA CX P Card tray Ge The manual card entry button is missing. Add “Manual card entry” button. This may be confusing for consumers when chosing to pay with a card they should have the option of manual card entry not just Click to Pay. We had complaints from customers on this. Ge Remove “Horizontal mark” in the bullet points. “Switch ID” video is not correct (it’s showing something else). Ge First two bullet points: Be clear that either Clarify that either / or email / phone is masked email OR mobile should be shown. (see comments above) present in the text. Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Reject It seems that your flow may include choosing a payment method before identifying a customer. In our example flows, we lead with customer identification before any payment method is chosen. Accept Removed Horizontal Mark reference in the pattern bullets. Confirmed correct video is showing. Accept Updated CX Pattern 05 to reflect Masked mobile number OR email (associated with linked cards) instead of having 2 separate bullets. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 18 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX P Card tray Ge Not clear how many cards can be shown without more/less button. More cards (+3) should be (+2) Proposed change EA CX P Switch ID Ge Bullet point 4: How should the text “back to my linked cards” be if triggered from another location? Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Accept For the "Display all cards" display option, there is no limit on the number of cards that can be displayed. Corrected +3 to +2 for collapsed/expanded display example. Acknowle dge If Switch ID is triggered from another location, the text “Back to my linked cards” is not displayed. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 19 of 20 Internal Draft Specification & Bulletin Industry Feedback Form Company Name: Consolidation of all Comments Primary Contact Name: Working Group or Task Force: SRCWG Document: CX Guidelines v1.2 Date: March 2026 EA/Sub1 Clause No./ Subclause No. /Annex) Paragraph/ Figure/Tabl e/Note Type of comment2 Comment (justification for change) EA CX P Card tray Ge It’s strange to not have the logo or CtP mentioned anywhere. This is ok only if the radio button is expanded to show the card tray. In our case, we switch to a new page and show the Click to Pay icon. The networks are now asking us to remove any Click to Pay icon or helper image. This is wrong. Proposed change Status (Accept, Reject, In progress) EMVCo Use Only EMVCo observations on each comment submitted Acknowle dge Patterns are elements that go on to a screen, so the card tray is embedded in merchant page. The examples EMVCo shows reflect the Click to Pay helper image in the background. Further implementation direction may be provided from the SRC Programme(s) and is out of scope for EMVCo. 1 EA/Sub = EMVCo Associate or Subscriber company (enter a 2-3 letter abbreviation for commenting) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial – For technical comments, please indicate whether your comment is a MAJOR or MINOR technical comment. Completed form should be forwarded to the appropriate Working Group or Task Force. Click on: https://www.emvco.com/contact/ to submit feedback. 09-Mar-2026 Page 20 of 20 Internal