An amber or insufficient result in a background verification (BGV) report means a check hasn't finished. It isn't a fail. Insufficiency means the check is missing something from the candidate, such as a readable degree certificate or an experience letter, so the fix is to get exactly that. Unable to verify means a source, like a past employer's HR team or a university, didn't give an answer, so the fix is a different source. Read the reason on the check, send one specific request, set a review date, and record your hiring decision separately from the verification result.
That's the whole method. The rest of this guide shows you how to run it check by check, and how to stop many of them from happening at all.
If amber cases are eating your week, use SpringVerify. We built it so the chasing isn't yours: the candidate gets a secure link that shows exactly what's missing, our team escalates to a past employer's reporting manager on WhatsApp when their HR goes quiet, and you see every request and reply in your dashboard rather than your inbox. HackerEarth's HR team described the difference this way: "Earlier, we had to intervene and initiate follow-ups with both the earlier vendor and candidates. With SpringVerify, we are no longer doing this. We only step in to talk to the candidate about an issue with their documentation."
You probably know the moment this guide is for. The offer is signed, the laptop is ordered and the joining date is Monday. Four checks are green. One has sat in orange for nine days, and nobody can tell you why.
In summary
Amber means a check is neither clearly verified nor clearly failed, and insufficient means the check can't finish because something is missing. Most reports use a red-amber-green (RAG) scheme, but no regulator in India sets BGV colour codes, so each provider defines its own, and one vendor's amber can be another's minor discrepancy or "unable to verify". Always read the status name and the reason written on the check, not just the colour.
SpringVerify doesn't use a single amber. Our published status key splits what most teams call amber into separate colours, because each one needs a different person to act:
| SpringVerify status | Colour | What it means | Who acts next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficiency | Orange | The documents or details provided aren't enough to run the check | The candidate (or your team) supplies the specific item requested |
| Unable to Verify (UTV) / Inconclusive | Yellow | The check concluded without a definite outcome, usually because no reliable source or verifier answered | You review the sources tried and ask whether another one exists |
| Minor Discrepancy | Pink | A small mismatch, such as a name spelling variation | You review it against your policy for the role |
| On-Hold | Black | The check is paused because documents or details are missing | Whoever holds the missing item |
| Insuff-Closed | Grey | The check was closed because an insufficiency was never resolved | You decide what the unfinished check means for the hire |
| Major Discrepancy | Red | A major mismatch, such as fake employment details or a fabricated offer letter | You, under your adverse-finding process |
| Completed (Verified) | Green | The check completed successfully | Nobody; review it with the rest of the package |
If you prefer plain colours to status names on reports, your SpringVerify account team can switch that on.
One line on that help page saves a lot of wasted chasing: an Insufficiency status can also be caused by pending additional charges. Before you ask the candidate for another document, read the reason on the check. Sometimes the candidate isn't the one holding things up.
No. Insufficiency is a gap on the input side: the candidate hasn't given the check what it needs. Unable to verify is a gap on the source side: the candidate gave everything, but the employer, university or other verifier didn't confirm or deny. Neither one says the candidate lied.
Three questions sort any amber check in under a minute:
The sort matters because one generic "please expedite" reminder fits none of them. A candidate who uploaded a blurry marksheet needs to hear "upload a clearer copy". A university that hasn't replied in three weeks needs a registrar escalation. A fourth reminder to the candidate about the university's silence only makes them anxious.
Find the exact request on the check, send the candidate one clear message pointing to the secure upload link, and make sure they know what will count. A candidate who knows precisely what's missing can usually fix it quickly. Vague requests are what make insufficiencies drag.
Here's how that works on SpringVerify:
Your message to the candidate should be specific and friendly. Most candidates are honest, and a wrong file is usually just a wrong file. Something like:
Hi [Name], your background check for [Company] needs one more document: [the exact item in the request, for example "all semester marksheets for your B.Com"]. Please upload it using the secure link in the email from SpringVerify. If you can't get it by [date], use "skip for now" and tell us why, and we'll work out another way with you.
Notice what the message leaves out: no forwarded copies of their documents, no request to email files to a recruiter, no threat. Keep candidate documents inside the verification platform, where access is controlled and logged.
Ask for the document the check needs, and nothing more. The table below is SpringVerify's standard list of what each check requires when an insufficiency is raised, with the alternatives we accept or suggest when the standard document isn't available.
| Check | Standard requirement | If the candidate doesn't have it |
|---|---|---|
| ID check | PAN, Voter ID or Driving Licence | Another of the three listed IDs |
| Passport check | Passport | None; the check needs the passport itself |
| Address check | Government-issued ID with address: DL, Aadhaar, Passport, Voter ID or Ration Card | A recent utility bill in their or a family member's name, or an affidavit on stamp paper confirming their stay at the address |
| Court check | Same as the address check | As for the address check |
| Employment check | Experience letter | Ask the former employer for it first. A relieving letter or payslips can support the dates while you wait; ask SpringVerify which evidence will settle the point (see the next section) |
| UAN check | UAN | The candidate can look up their UAN with EPFO |
| Education check | Degree certificate plus all semester marksheets | Ask the university for a duplicate or provisional certificate, and explain the delay in the insufficiency comment |
| Credit check | PAN with name, date of birth and address | None; the check needs the PAN details |
| World-Check (global database) | Name, date of birth and address | None; these details are the check |
| Social media check | Links to LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram profiles, made public | Profiles the candidate actually has |
| Drug test | Urine sample, collected at the candidate's home, a nearby lab or your office for bulk drives, where serviceable | Reschedule the collection |
The affidavit and utility-bill alternatives for address are SpringVerify's published answer; the other alternatives are practical steps to agree against your own policy.
Two habits prevent a lot of insufficiencies before they start. First, tell candidates the full document list when you send the BGV form, not after a check stalls. Second, ask for HR and reporting-manager contact details for every past employer in the form itself. We ask for both because they let us reach the right person at the company quickly, which cuts turnaround, and small companies in particular can be hard to reach without a named contact. For address checks, candidates can also authenticate through DigiLocker, which brings in government-issued documents directly instead of a scanned upload.
Change the source, not the deadline. An unable-to-verify result means the employer, university or record holder didn't answer, so another reminder to the same inbox rarely helps. The right second source depends on the check, and a good vendor should be working through it before the check ever turns yellow.
This is where the difference between vendors shows. Here's what we do on each check when the first source goes quiet:
| Check | Where it usually gets stuck | What SpringVerify does next |
|---|---|---|
| Employment | The past employer's HR team doesn't reply | We escalate to the candidate's reporting manager over WhatsApp, and use PF/EPFO records as a backup for tenure where they're available |
| Employment (company closed) | No one left to answer | We rely on PF/EPFO records, MCA archive data and available statutory filings, which exist whether or not the company still trades |
| Education | The university is slow or doesn't respond | A regional verification partner with a contact at the institution checks the records; if the institution is unrecognised, unresponsive or the records look suspicious, we write to the registrar directly on official letterhead |
| Education (university closed or merged) | The original institution no longer exists | We route the request to the successor body or the state education department that holds the archived records |
| Address | A digital check returns a discrepancy, or the candidate has poor mobile signal | We recommend a physical check by a trained field agent |
| Court records | A possible match can't be confirmed or ruled out | We grade it Inconclusive rather than guess, ask the candidate for a PCC, validate it and re-grade the case, with no duplicate charge and no re-run of the original search |
| Employment gaps | The candidate doesn't answer questions about a gap | Up to three call and email attempts, then an insufficiency asking for another contact; only if that also gets no answer is the check graded Unable to Verify |
Sources: SpringVerify employment verification, education verification, address verification, court record check and employment gap check pages, all.
Be clear about what each backup source proves. An EPFO record can support that someone worked somewhere and when. It doesn't confirm their job title or how they left. A company registration shows an employer existed; it doesn't show your candidate worked there. That's why our employment verification confirms tenure, designation and conduct with the employer wherever it can, and states the source behind each point in the report. If a report says "tenure confirmed through EPFO, designation not confirmed", you know exactly what's left open.
For court records, the Inconclusive grade exists to protect candidates. Court records in India often leave out a father's name or address, and spellings vary, so a raw name search can pin a stranger's case on your candidate. Our court record check grades every match against name, father's name and address, and sends unclear matches down a defined PCC path instead of leaving you with a name hit and a decision to make.
Set a review date for each open check based on that check's normal turnaround time (TAT), not one hold period for everything. A missing marksheet should close within days; an official university confirmation can legitimately take months. If a check passes its normal turnaround with no movement, escalate it that day.
Use SpringVerify's published turnarounds as your baseline:
| Check | Published turnaround | Escalate when |
|---|---|---|
| Basic checks | Under 60 seconds | If one is still open, read the comment to see what it's waiting on |
| All verifications | 80% completed within 48 hours | You're in the other 20%; find out which check and why |
| Digital address verification | Usually 24 to 48 hours | Past 48 hours with no candidate action |
| Physical address verification | 3 to 7 business days | Past 7 business days, or a missed visit |
| Employment verification | Most checks 5 to 6 working days, depending on how quickly the past employer's HR responds | Past 6 working days; ask whether the reporting manager route has been tried |
| Official education verification | Typically 15 to 90 days, depending on the institution | Plan the joining date around it rather than escalating early |
Sources: SpringVerify homepage and service pages. These are typical turnarounds, not guarantees, and time spent waiting for a candidate's documents can add to them.
Each open check should have three things written next to it: who owns the next action (the candidate, SpringVerify or you), what that action is, and the date you'll look again. Our guide to how long a background check takes shows how to order checks so the slow ones start first.
Yes, if your hiring policy allows it for that role, but it's an employer decision, not a verification result. Joining with an open check means you've accepted a known gap for now. It doesn't mean the check passed, and the report should never be edited to say it did.
A sensible policy separates roles by risk:
If you allow conditional joining, have your legal team draft the clause: that the appointment depends on verification, how long the check can stay open, what access is restricted in the meantime and what happens if the final result is adverse. Our guide to reading and acting on red flags in BGV reports covers what to do when an amber check turns into a real discrepancy. For a specific case, take legal advice.
Whatever you decide, collect only what the check needs and keep it only as long as you need it. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 sets the rules for collecting and keeping candidate data, and under G.S.R. 843(E) its core duties, including notice and consent, apply from 13 May 2027. Building your amber process around them now is easier than rebuilding it later.
Write down the decision, the evidence and the person who made it, next to the check, every time. An auditor, an enterprise client or your own leadership will eventually ask why two similar amber cases got different answers. "We used our judgement" is a weak reply. A dated record with the evidence and the policy clause is a strong one.
On SpringVerify, much of that record is built for you. Every verification is timestamped and source-cited, contact attempts are logged, and if an authorised admin regrades a check (for example, from Unable to Verify to Verified, because your policy accepts the evidence you have), the system makes them enter a reason. The original "data found" statuses stay unchanged, only the check status moves, and every regrade is captured in the Update Logs. So you can accept a gap without rewriting history. Admins can also move any check to Closed, which is useful when a candidate withdraws, and that change is logged too.
Add the parts only you can supply:
| Record | What to write |
|---|---|
| Check and status | The exact status name and reason, not just "amber" |
| What's still unverified | The specific fact that remains open, for example "designation at second employer" |
| Evidence reviewed | Source responses, documents, the candidate's explanation, with dates |
| Role relevance | Which requirement of the role it affects, and the policy clause you applied |
| Decision | Hold, ask for more, approve joining with conditions, or decline |
| Owner and review date | Who approved it, and when you'll look again if anything is still open |
When you report on BGV, count verified checks separately from checks closed without verification. An Insuff-Closed check that quietly turns up in a "completed" figure makes your process look healthier than it is.
HR teams choose SpringVerify because amber cases stop being their problem to chase. The request goes straight to the candidate with a link, the follow-up with past employers is ours, and the evidence for every decision sits in one report. Here's the proof.
You stop chasing candidates and past employers. Asmita Paul, Senior HR Generalist at HackerEarth, said the automated platform, interim reports and quick turnaround "easily saved us 3-4 hours daily", and "saved us the hassle of lengthy email chains." This account comes from HackerEarth's 2023 case study.
You can see what's blocking a check without asking anyone. In Signeasy's 2022 case study, Loina Dhal, Executive Human Resources at Signeasy, said her team had "to wait for 15 days to 1 month for a status update" from their previous provider, and kept wondering "why it isn't changing from in-progress to complete." With SpringVerify: "I see a status update being available almost immediately on the SpringVerify portal." Sameer Wahie, founder of Swageazy: "Everything is digital and automated. But I still get up-to-date progress on every candidate verification without contacting a representative."
A namesake's court case doesn't land on your candidate. Ritika Raj, Senior Manager I, HR Shared Services at LoadShare Networks: "SpringVerify gave us what we were missing - the ability to actually see court case risks clearly. It has meaningfully reduced our BGV delays and given our HR team the visibility to move faster with confidence."
Every document and conversation is in the report, not your inbox. Prathima Shetty, HR Manager at Pazcare, recalls handling 100 to 200 emails a day back when background checks ran over email. With SpringVerify: "The candidate themselves upload the documents, and all I need to do is initiate a background verification," and the report lets her "see each and every detail starting from document copies, email conversations, summaries of verifications".
A team that answers. Govindprasad Goankar, Executive VP and HR Head at Kotak Mahindra Asset Management: "We've been using SpringVerify since March 2025 and the experience has been smooth so far. What we appreciate most is how proactive and solution oriented they are."
Candidate data you can defend. SpringVerify holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II certifications, listed on our security page. Candidates give consent and upload documents online, and checks can start from the HR tools you already use, with 100+ HRIS, ATS and HRMS integrations including Darwinbox, Keka, Zoho People and Workday.
SpringVerify is a strong fit if you hire in India regularly, your joining dates keep slipping because of stuck checks, and you want each amber case to arrive with its reason, its next step and its evidence. It suits teams that answer to auditors or enterprise clients and need a record of how every call was made.
Not the right fit if:
Pick SpringVerify if you want amber cases to close without your team chasing them, so offers turn into joining dates and your decisions hold up when someone asks.
No. Amber usually means a check couldn't finish: a document is missing, a source didn't reply or there's a small mismatch. Read the status name and reason on the check before drawing any conclusion. On SpringVerify, these are separate statuses: Insufficiency (orange), Unable to Verify (yellow) and Minor Discrepancy (pink).
Insufficiency means the documents or details the candidate provided aren't enough for the source to verify the check, for example an unreadable certificate or a missing experience letter. SpringVerify emails the candidate a secure link showing exactly what's needed. Once the missing item is accepted, the verification carries on.
Set the deadline in your policy, and match it to the document. A clearer scan takes minutes; a letter from a former employer can take weeks. On SpringVerify, a candidate who can't respond yet can choose "skip for now" with a reason, and gets a reminder to finish later.
On SpringVerify, a check that ends with the insufficiency unresolved is marked Insuff-Closed (grey). That means it stopped without a verified result, not that it passed or failed. Record why it closed and decide, under your policy, whether the hire goes ahead without it.
Insuff-Closed means the check ended because an insufficiency was never resolved. Closed means the check was closed, for example because the candidate withdrew. Neither is the same as Verified, so keep both out of your verified counts.
On SpringVerify, an authorised admin can regrade a check such as Unable to Verify to Verified, but must enter a reason. The original data-found statuses stay as they were, and the change is recorded in the Update Logs, so the evidence trail stays intact.
Next step: see how an amber case gets resolved on SpringVerify. Book a SpringVerify demo and we'll walk you through an insufficiency from request to resolution, including the history, the candidate's link and the audit log.
.png)
