Project
Compliance-Aligned User Journeys
Product Manager, Exinity
I designed onboarding and payment journeys for multiple emerging markets that met each jurisdiction's regulatory requirements without collapsing conversion — a balance that required close collaboration with compliance, legal, and UX.
- I built a decision matrix across regulatory necessity, risk severity, and drop-off patterns, then reordered flows so mandatory steps happened with minimal perceived friction and localised content reduced document confusion.
- Completion rates improved, verification failures reduced, and new markets launched faster because the compliance integration model was repeatable.
Overview
At Exinity, every market had its own regulatory requirements — different KYC rules, risk profiling obligations, and disclosure standards. The default approach had been to apply everything upfront, which satisfied compliance but crushed the user experience. My role was to find the right trade-off: fully compliant journeys that didn't drive users away before they completed onboarding.
The Problem
Compliance requirements and optimal conversion flows were in direct conflict. Compliance wanted every check and disclosure surfaced immediately. UX data showed that long, front-loaded journeys produced high drop-off. The problem wasn't that compliance was wrong — the requirements were real and non-negotiable in many cases. The problem was that no one had structured the flows to distinguish between what was truly mandatory up front and what could be sequenced differently.
New markets added more complexity: different trade-offs, different document requirements, different tolerance for friction at different points in the funnel.
What I Did
I built a decision matrix for each market based on four dimensions: regulatory necessity (is this legally required before activation?), risk severity (what's the cost of getting it wrong?), user drop-off patterns (where are people leaving?), and market sensitivity (how does this population respond to friction?).
Working from that matrix, I sat down with compliance and legal in each jurisdiction to identify what was flexible and what was genuinely non-negotiable. That distinction mattered — a lot of what had been treated as mandatory upfront was actually something that could be collected progressively without breaching any rule.
I then reordered flows so the truly mandatory steps happened early but with minimal perceived friction, and used progressive disclosure for requirements that could be deferred to later in the journey. I localised document instructions and eligibility messaging by country, which significantly reduced confusion in markets where global copy had been causing failure.
What I Built
I introduced structured compliance checkpoints into the delivery process — each new market had a pre-development alignment session with compliance/legal where requirements were documented, and a pre-launch UAT sign-off before any flow went live. This made compliance a collaborative partner in design rather than a late-stage gate.
Impact
Completion rates improved and verification failures reduced across the markets I worked on. The reordered, localised flows meant users encountered less friction at the points where drop-off had been highest. New market launches became faster because the compliance integration model was now repeatable — rather than starting from scratch each time, the framework provided a clear structure to work within.