Define the problem before estimating a loss
Buddy punching means one person records attendance on behalf of another. It is distinct from a missed punch, an incorrect schedule, a delayed sync or a payroll mapping error. A suspicious record deserves investigation, not an automatic conclusion about intent.
Do not apply an unsourced fraud percentage to your payroll to create a savings forecast. Start with documented cases, recording gaps and review effort in your own process.
Compare what each control adds
Scroll the table sideways to read all columns.
| Control | Useful contribution | Remaining question |
|---|---|---|
| Individual credential/device | Associates submission with authorization | Who actually used it? |
| Event location | Reports where a device said it was | Is the position accurate and authentic? |
| Selfie review | Provides visual capture evidence | Is it current and the intended worker? |
| Liveness interaction | Tests an implemented capture response | Does it identify the worker or resist the relevant attack? |
| Face matching | Compares against an enrolled reference | How are errors and untrusted inputs handled? |
| Recorded correction review | Explains changes and decisions | Are permissions and responsibilities appropriate? |
No row guarantees fraud prevention. Combining controls also adds worker friction, data collection and support needs that should be proportionate to the actual problem.
Do not confuse deterrence with trusted identity
Attendify combines device authorization, liveness selfie and event location; optional face matching is controlled. The server compares candidate representations, but inference runs on the device and fabricated-client inputs remain a limitation.
The security overview describes the boundary. A claim such as “the server checks it” should not be interpreted as complete protection against a technically capable attacker.
Keep review fair
When a capture fails, investigate device, assignment, network and working conditions as well as the event itself. Provide a named route for reporting genuine work. Corrections should preserve the original evidence and state a reason.
If recorded hours fall after a rollout, inspect whether missing captures or unhandled exceptions caused the change. A lower total does not establish that fraud was reduced or that wages should be lower.
Evaluate the outcome you can actually measure
Record known discrepancies, time to resolve them, worker support needs and remaining uncertainty. Compare with a documented baseline. Avoid borrowing another vendor’s percentages or presenting a hypothetical calculation as a customer result.
Use the method comparison and recorded corrections to choose a workflow that improves evidence without making the biometric result the sole authority over someone’s work.