# Verification record — `nl/rvig/national-identity-card-application` v1.0.0 This file is the **source-review record** for this document version, per the [`manual-source-review-v1`](../../../../../practices/manual-source-review-v1.md) practice. ## Current claim - **`status`:** `draft` - **`verification.method`:** `manual-source-review-v1` - **`verification.lastVerifiedAt`:** `2026-07-03` ## Why this candidate, why now The Netherlands was at 4/6 focus verticals (DMV, Business Formation, Taxes, Passport) going into this cycle, with Visa and National ID & Civic Documents open. `nl/rvig/passport-application`'s own VERIFICATION.md explicitly flagged this as the natural next candidate: "A future `nl/rvig/national-identity-card- application` schema would reuse the same eligibility/minor-consent shape," following the same split `de/bmi` uses between `passport-application` and `national-identity-card-application` — two distinct legal documents issued by the same authority through the same in-person channel. This cycle also investigated NL's Visa gap first (the Netherlands' Schengen short-stay visa uses the EU-harmonised Annex I form already modelled for France as `fr/france-visas/schengen-visa-application`, so an NL-specific schema would largely duplicate it with no new teaching value; the NL-specific alternative — the IND's national long-stay entry visa (MVV) — is split across 200+ purpose-specific application forms with no single representative instance, unlike Germany's one general-purpose national visa form). Both are documented as open findings below rather than authored this cycle; the identity card was the stronger, source-grounded candidate available this heartbeat. ## Sources examined - **Document `(id, version)`:** `nl/rvig/national-identity-card-application` / `1.0.0` - **Spec version:** GovSchema `0.3.0` - **Authority:** Rijksdienst voor Identiteitsgegevens (RvIG), on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), under the Paspoortwet 1991 and the Paspoortuitvoeringsregeling Nederland (PUN) — the same authority and legal basis as `nl/rvig/passport-application`. Applications are received and processed at gemeente (municipality) passport/ID desks, not at RvIG directly. - **Primary source (fetched directly, HTTP 200):** — the municipality of Utrecht's official digital loket page, the same page `nl/rvig/passport-application` used, since Utrecht presents passport and ID-card applications as one combined service. Confirmed: required documents (existing travel documents, a passport photo no older than 6 months), the identity card's own 2026 fee table by age tier/speed (distinct from the passport's table), standard (6 working day) and expedited (next/second business day) processing timelines, the 3-month document-destruction rule, fingerprint capture from age 12, and a guardian-consent walkthrough presented under an "Aanvragen (kind jonger dan 12 jaar)" (Applying — child younger than 12) subheading. - **Secondary sources (national cross-check, fetched directly, HTTP 200):** - — confirms eligibility (Dutch nationality only), registration-municipality requirement, and mandatory in-person attendance apply identically to both documents. - — "Voor personen vanaf 18 jaar is het paspoort of de Nederlandse identiteitskaart (ID-kaart) 10 jaar geldig. Voor personen jonger dan 18 jaar blijft een paspoort of identiteitskaart 5 jaar geldig" — validity is identical for both documents (10y at 18+, 5y under 18). - — states the consent rule directly as a comparison table: identity card requires parental/guardian consent only under age 12; passport requires it for the full under-18 population. This **resolves** the ambiguity `nl/rvig/passport-application`'s VERIFICATION.md had explicitly flagged as unconfirmed — that Utrecht's shared page frames its guardian-consent walkthrough under the under-12 threshold because that is the genuine ID-card rule, not because the passport's own under-18 rule was under-described. This document's `applicantIsUnder12` field is grounded directly in this source, independent of the passport schema's inference-by-extension caveat. - A supplementary web search corroborated the same under-12/12-17 split across three independent municipality pages (Amsterdam, and others found via search) using consistent language ("Kinderen jonger dan 12 jaar hebben toestemming nodig... vanaf 12 jaar is geen toestemming nodig"), reducing the risk that this is a single source's error. - **Under-12 guardian-consent form (previously fetched directly, HTTP 200, text-extracted for `nl/rvig/passport-application`; re-used here):** — "Toestemming ouder/gezaghebber voor minderjarige aanvrager(s)" / "Parental/Legal guardian consent for minor applicant(s)", a bilingual (Dutch/English) national form published in the Staatscourant (Stcrt. 2008, nr. 115, Ministerie van Algemene Zaken). Its application-type checkbox includes "identiteitskaart" alongside "paspoort," confirming it is the shared national consent instrument for both documents, not passport-specific. - **Retrieved / reviewed:** 2026-07-03. - **Reviewer:** GovSchema Engineering (Standards Engineer — initial authoring source review). ## What was confirmed against the source | Source element | Field(s) / document(s) | |---|---| | Rijksoverheid.nl — nationality/registration eligibility, stated for both documents | `isDutchNational`, `registeredInApplyingMunicipality` | | Utrecht loket page — required documents confirm registered personal data | `lastName`, `firstNames`, `dateOfBirth` | | Toestemmingsverklaring — "Geboorteplaats / Place of birth" | `placeOfBirth` | | Rijksoverheid.nl validity Q&A — 5y under 18 / 10y at 18+ | `applicantIsMinor` | | Rijksoverheid.nl "Heeft mijn kind een eigen paspoort of identiteitskaart nodig?" — consent required under 12 only | `applicantIsUnder12` | | Utrecht loket page — DigiD remote consent vs. printable PDF fallback, under the under-12 walkthrough | `allAuthorizedGuardiansAttendingInPerson`, `absentGuardianConsentMethod`, `documents[].guardianConsentDocument` | | Toestemmingsverklaring — "Vader / Moeder / Gezaghouder" | `consentingGuardianRelationship` | | Toestemmingsverklaring — "geldigheid van drie maanden vanaf datum ondertekening" | `documents[].guardianConsentDocument.freshness` (P3M) | | Toestemmingsverklaring — signature-verification clause | `documents[].guardianIdentityDocumentCopy`, gated on `absentGuardianConsentMethod == signed_paper_form` | | Utrecht loket page — identity-card-specific fee table and processing-time tiers | `processingSpeed` | | Utrecht loket page — "Delivery service costs €19.00" | `deliveryMethod` | | Utrecht loket page — required travel documents / photo freshness | `documents[].existingTravelDocuments`, `documents[].passportPhoto` | | Utrecht loket page — fee table, debit card/cash payment at appointment | `documents[].applicationFeePayment` | ## What is NOT independently confirmed / out of scope - **A live, authenticated gemeente appointment or DigiD pre-fill session.** No test DigiD credential was available; this document is transcribed from published process descriptions, not a completed live walkthrough — the same discipline `nl/rvig/passport-application` applied. - **Whether Utrecht's fee table and timelines are byte-identical in every gemeente.** Fees and processing times are nationally regulated in principle, but only the *structure* of the process is asserted as nationwide; no fee amount is encoded as an `amount` object on `applicationFeePayment`, consistent with every other schema in this registry. - **The 12-17 age band's fingerprint/photo requirements beyond what is common to the passport.** This document assumes the same fingerprint (12+) and photo rules the passport uses, since Utrecht's page presents both documents as one combined biometric-capture process; no source was found that states an identity-card-specific deviation. - **The exact set of European countries that accept the Nederlandse identiteitskaart as a travel document outside the Schengen area.** Rijksoverheid.nl confirms the card works throughout Schengen and notes some additional European countries accept it by informal practice rather than formal agreement, but does not publish an exhaustive list; this is described in prose only and not modelled as a field. - **The Nederlands paspoort (passport).** Out of scope — see `nl/rvig/passport-application`. - **NL Visa vertical — investigated this cycle, not authored.** Two candidates were considered and both have real obstacles: 1. **Short-stay Schengen visa** (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken / Dutch missions abroad, submitted via VFS Global and similar external service providers). The application form used is the EU-harmonised Annex I form to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (cerfa n° 14076*02) — the *same* form already modelled as `fr/france-visas/schengen-visa- application` (GOV-770), since the harmonised form is identical across all Schengen states regardless of which consulate receives it. An NL-specific schema would duplicate that content with no new teaching value, so it was not authored. `nl/rdw/drivers-licence-renewal`'s VERIFICATION.md (GOV-843) previously described this channel as having "no downloadable PDF equivalent" — that description was about the account-gated appointment-booking portal, not the form itself; the harmonised form is genuinely downloadable (confirmed via a VFS Global Netherlands mirror), so this finding supersedes that one. 2. **National long-stay entry visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf, MVV)**, issued by the IND for stays over 90 days. This is NL-specific and would not duplicate the FR schema, but the IND publishes forms per residence purpose (family reunification, work, self-employment, study, and others) rather than one general-purpose form — its own forms page lists 241 results. Germany's equivalent schema (`de/auswaertiges-amt/national-visa-application`) was authorable because the German national visa uses one general form with a purpose-selection field; no NL equivalent single form was found this cycle. A future cycle should pick one representative purpose (family reunification is the largest category) and scope a schema explicitly to it, the same way `nl/belastingdienst/individual-income-tax-return- m-form` scoped to one filer population rather than modelling the Belastingdienst's full return. ## Scope and jurisdiction notes - This is NL's **fifth** registry entry, and its **second** in the National ID & Civic Documents vertical framing (the first NL entry there, since Passport and National ID & Civic Documents are tracked as separate verticals in this project's charter). NL is now 5/6 verticals; only Visa remains open, per the findings above. - Conditional flow uses `requiredWhen` (GSP-0013) for the under-12 guardian- consent branch (a chained `all` condition), and `steps[].transitions` with `exitReason` (GSP-0013 §4) for the two eligibility gates (non-Dutch national; not registered in the applying municipality), mirroring `nl/rvig/passport-application`'s convention. - `dateOfBirth`/`placeOfBirth` are marked `classification: pii`/ `sensitive-pii` per GSP-0006's advisory vocabulary, consistent with `nl/rvig/passport-application` and `de/bmi/national-identity-card- application`. - Mock-data condition-evaluator testing (four profiles: adult renewal; applicant aged 14, i.e. minor but not under 12, requiring no consent fields; applicant aged 8 with both guardians attending; applicant aged 8 with one guardian consenting remotely via DigiD) confirmed every `requiredWhen` branch resolves as intended, including that the 14-year-old profile correctly leaves `allAuthorizedGuardiansAttendingInPerson` etc. unset and not required. No script is checked into the registry (structural-reference schemas in this registry do not carry conformance fixtures — GSP-0016 fixtures are used once a schema reaches `verified`). ## Path to a `verified` claim (next step) To advance to `status: verified`, a reviewer with a genuine Dutch DigiD account (and, for the guardian-consent branch, an eligible applicant under 12 and a co-holder of parental authority) completes an actual gemeente identity-card appointment, or obtains independent confirmation from someone who has, confirming: the exact data the appointment/pre-fill screens collect directly versus pre-populate from the BRP, whether every gemeente truly applies the same fee/consent structure as Utrecht's, and the current fee figures. Recording the outcome here and shipping a new schema version if discrepancies are found (VERSIONING.md §3, immutability). ## Re-verification Per the practice's Cadence, `nextReviewBy` is set to **2027-01-01** (6 months).