wbass | Posts: 10

Questions about the Evidence Summary

Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 09:40am
0 votes
These questions are regarding the Evidence Summaries we have available for each package: – Does the signer role listed have to be unique regardless of a unique package? Example: Package1 – signer1, signer2; Package2 – signer3, signer4; etc and so on. Or does how we label the roles matter if its a unique package? – This question probably ties into the last one I am guessing. We were looking at the “Signer ID” on the evidence summary and curious what that is used for and how others may have used that with their integrations. What is its purpose? Would we need to store that value to be used (triage issues, etc)?
mwilliams | Posts: 957

Reply to: Questions about the Evidence Summary

Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 09:52am
0 votes
For signer roles, you can reuse the signer role across many packages. You could use Signer1 and Signer2 in all transactions. They only need to be unique within a transaction so that their approvals (signatures and other fields) can be tied to their particular roleId. The information in the evidence summary is available from the package metadata and audit service, so this information is accessible directly from the API. Having the signerId would allow you to tie the line from the audit information back to the signer in the transaction. Let me know if I didn't fully answer your questions. :)
wbass | Posts: 10

Reply to: Questions about the Evidence Summary

Monday, July 3, 2017 at 10:01am
0 votes
Sorry - totally just realized I missed a question. For inperson/iframe is an email required for each signer?

Hello! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but haven't signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off

LoginSign Up