Delete Current Exhibit VI and replace with this Exhibit VI Keep same Title PURPOSE -Provide measurable criteria for image exchange -Alert receiving bank personnel -Allow for automated detection and flagging of bad quality electronic images -Establish minimum required standards necessary to qualify as an Image for purposes of Section XIX of the Rules. DEFINITION -IMAGE QUALITY is that characteristic defined as a faithful digital representation of the source document -IMAGE USABILITY is that characteristic defined by the degree of legibility and readability necessary to perform a specific function. For this purpose, legibility is defined as the quality of a letter or numeral that enables a reasonable observer to identify it positively and quickly to the exclusion of all other letters or numerals. For this purpose, readability is defined as the quality of a group of letters or numerals being recognized to a reasonable observer as words or complete numbers. The distinction between Image Quality and Image Usability is made to avoid problems with terminology. The term good image is unfortunately used to refer to both quality and usability. For example, given two checks one of which is a bad source document, the image capture equipment could likely produce a good image and a bad image. Both images could be good quality images but one is usable while the other is not. Therefore in setting the standard for Image Quality, the conditions are limited to problematic cases where the image capture equipment may potentially be the cause. A presenting bank transmitting an Electronic Image that satisfies the Image Quality standards specified in this Appendix but is not usable because of a bad source document for purposes of Section XVI has provided an Electronic Image meeting the minimum required quality standards prescribed in this Exhibit. MINIMUM REQUIRED QUALITY STANDARDS NECESSARY TO QUALIFY AS AN ELECTRONIC IMAGE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION XIX OF THE RULES. -Full image or a partial image satisfying the above Image Usability definition -Image of a single check (not a piggyback) -Not skewed or a skewed image satisfying the above Image Usability definition -No streaks or bands or an image with streaks or bands satisfying the above Image Usability definition -Within tolerance of a compressed image size (The tolerance range is not specified since it varies for every capture platform and future technological advances in compression may alter it.) A missing image condition is not a question of quality and therefore not included in the standard specifications. However, since it is detected by the image capture platform, this condition must be flagged in the image file by the sending institution.
GUIDELINES FOR IMAGE COMPATIBILE SOURCE DOCUMENTS Image Quality is that characteristic defined as a faithful digital representation of a source document. Regardless of excellent and properly functioning image capture equipment, if the source document is bad, the image may have high quality but nonetheless still be unusable. There are certain conditions, which can cause the check to become a bad source document. For instance, there are lines, background designs, and descriptive words that can interfere with producing a good usable image of the check. Specific paper, ink and color not conforming to ANSI Standards and guidelines can also render the check non-image compatible. The following ANSI Standards and Technical Guidelines pertaining to check design are recommended: -TG-2 Understanding and Designing Checks -TG-6 Quality Control of MICR Documents -TG-8 Check Security Guidelines -X9.7 Bank Background and Number Convenient Amount Fields -X9.13 Specification for Placement and Location of MICR -X9.18 Paper Specifications for Checks -X9.27 Print and Test Specifications for Magnetic Ink Printing -X9.29 Check Carrier Envelope Specification -X9.40 Check Correction Strip Specification -X9.51 Document Fraud Deterrent -X9.53 Specification for Check Endorsements The following specifications are guidelines on paper and ink usage that would facilitate image compatible documents. PAPER SPECIFICATIONS Paper Forms processed are always single sheets of regular finish papers with a minimum reflectance of 70% in the visible range. The opacity range is 75-90 percent. Grades of paper commonly used for preparation of payment and control documents include MICR bond, carbonless paper, various safety papers, card stock and special check papers provided they meet the criteria specified in ANSI Standard X9.18. This ANSI document covers specific paper physical requirements (i.e., basis guidelines.) Watermarked papers can be used but the watermark shall not interfere with the MICR or OCR reading so as to cause a document to be rejected. Avoid using glossy stock because the MICR ink may not adhere to the paper. White paper is strongly recommended, as it will provide the optimum in scanning performance. Visual contrast will suffer dramatically when using colored inks on colored papers. White paper also provides the best in visual contrast between the background and the light pastel colored inks used to highlight the handwritten data fields. Paper Weight The paper weights currently used for documents and checks designed for typical check processing systems can still be used for the new Image Processing System. The minimum paper weight is 20 lb. MICR bond; maximum paper weight is 44 lb. bond. The recommended paper weight is 24 lbs.
INK SPECIFICATIONS Low Contrast Dropout Ink (Non-read Inks) Purpose: Used in the printing of Field or Character Constraint Guidelines (CCG) Special low contrast ink formulations must be used to print field or character constraint guides so that they will be visible to the user but disappear in a black and white image of the document. Low contrast ink ensures that these constraint guidelines will not interfere with automated recognition of data that is to be added to the document by the user. The contrast of any dropout feature, such as character constraint guidelines to guide customer handwriting, is measured by comparing ink darkness with the surrounding background area on the document. Contrast is specified in terms of a ratio called PCS (print contrast signal), a value between zero to one. Low contrast PCS values, which will always drop out, are below 0.25 for deposit tickets (0.30 for checks), while high values, which will always stay in the image, are above 0.60. The objective is to print constraint boxes that are easily visible to the user but stay safely below 0.25 PCS. However the low PCS dropout printing is achieved, either by the use of solid pastel colors or by appropriate screen densities of a darker solid color, it is the responsibility of the forms printer to meet this requirement. It is strongly recommended that, before production print runs of the document, sample documents be tested for appropriate dropout printing on a suitable PCS measuring instrument. High Contrast Read Ink Purpose: Used for printing areas of a document (e.g., dollar amount, logos, payee field) intended to be visible to and stored by the image capture platform. Solid dark color or black ink is recommended to assure features remain in the black image. NON-REFLECTIVE (READ) PRINTING: For handwritten or machine printed data, black ink is preferred and highly recommended. Black ink on white paper will offer the best possible condition for scanning results. This applies to the $ which is preprinted adjacent to the numeric dollar information. All business checks designed for machine-printed convenience amount fields must have the dollar sign printed at the same time, and with the same printing device, as the dollar amount. This ensures the correct alignment, both vertically and horizontally, between the dollar sign and the dollar amount characters. The minimum permissible PCS for (readable) non-reflective printing is 0.60 PCS.
Exhibit VI Electronic Image Quality Standards Developing and following an objective definition of image quality has proven elusive. In addition, the jargon used across the industry to describe image quality has not been precise and is frequently not very helpful. From a payments perspective, it is not the appearance of the image that is most important but whether the payment instructions can be determined to allow appropriate posting to the drawer s account. Therefore, the ability to use the image is more important than the appearance of the image. The following comments describe image quality (defect metrics) and image usability and encourage industry practices that will minimize the avoidable issues that could delay the payment and/or return of individual check image payments. Much effort has already been expended by the industry to understand and describe these two aspects of image payments and how they relate to processing requirements. However, additional time and experience are needed to clearly articulate the technical specifications necessary for computers to replicate the consistent determination of what is good quality and what is not. Once articulated, the solution must be cost effective and operationally efficient. Given that there are limitations in technology, for at least the nearterm, the primary focus should be on whether the image can be used by the institution for all of its processing requirements. First a review of some assumptions may be helpful. Industry practices should promote the creation and maintenance of images that can be used by institutions for processing payments. The risk associated with images that are unusable is manageable and tends to be self-regulating for images created by financial institutions since the parties most affected by unusable images are the paying institutions themselves and their customers. Obtaining usable images begins with good quality paper documents. There are industry standards that address the quality of original paper checks and it is the responsibility of each financial institution to promote its customer s use of quality original paper checks. It is also the responsibility of the financial institution to discourage its customer from buying or printing paper checks that will create processing problems and from writing checks with poor quality computer ribbons, cartridges, etc. or using unacceptable instruments, such as gel pens in metallic or neon colors. Next, with proper maintenance of the equipment, the usability of images should be similar to the usablility of the original paper item. Finally, financial institutions should take commercially reasonable measures to limit the number of unusable images that are exchanged, and to apply practical and objective reasons to determine whether to process or return an image for suspected poor quality. Institutions that do not provide usable images may be requested to supply a better copy. This could mean that the sending bank needs to retain an image in an alternate format (e.g. grayscale), needs to keep a better copy of the image or needs to retain the Related Physical Check. The concepts of quality and usability of an image address the differences in the medium of the payment and the specifications of the payment. The medium is used to deliver the payment to the appropriate financial institution and subsequently to its customer. The usability of the image addresses the bank s ability to process the payment which is dependent on the receipt of the key elements of a check; e.g. the identification of the
paying institution, identification of the drawer s account, the amount that is authorized for payment, drawer s signature, etc. It is possible for many aspects of the image to be incomplete while the information needed for posting or for subsequent processing to be in perfect condition. One example is the picture of the family pet in the background could be mostly illegible and yet the identification of the drawer s account number might be very clear. This concept is addressed in Regulation CC, Subpart D concerning the creation of substitute checks from images. Reg CC says that it is not necessary to reproduce all background designs and colors to create a substitute check that is the legal equivalent of the original paper check. Another example is that one or more corners could be torn or folded, thus reducing the quality of the image but having no impact on the posting of the payment. Some characteristics of images can be measured and can predict with a reasonable probability whether the image is likely to be useable. These measurements are the size of the original document imaged and whether the image is too dark or too light. If the size of the original document as represented by the image is, for example, only one inch by one inch, it is not likely that the information on the image will be sufficiently useful for posting. The quality of the image of that one inch square document may be exceptional but not useful as a payment. Likewise, a solid black image is likely not useable. Rather than the quality of the image overall, what is most important is whether the information fields can be used for the bank s and the customer s purposes to effect payment. Typically, posting of the item is from the data on the MICR line and not from the image of the check. From the FSTC study, images with the following characteristics are potentially unusable images: Front: Image Too Dark required threshold of >39.0% for exchange environment Failure is likely to result in an unusable image. Image Too Light required threshold of <21.0% The FSTC had no recommendations for the back of the image. (One note of caution: application of standard measurements for too light and too dark should be considered separately for the front and back of a check. Frequently the back of the check will be blank on a forward item and therefore will be lighter than its corresponding front; while a returned check image with many endorsements may be darker than its corresponding front.) In addition to the recommendations in the FSTC report, the following measurements serve as reasonable indicators of usability and should generate relatively few alerts. Min Max Height Dimension 2.2 inches 4.8 inches Width Dimension 5.5 inches 9.4 inches Height Mismatch N/A.6 inches Width Mismatch N/A.5 inches For example, images with dimensions smaller than the minimum size in the table are probably not usable and images with dimensions larger than the maximum size in the table are probably not usable. The height, width and mismatch dimensions are based on FSTC data, vendor and bank testing.
Some questions have been raised about whether an image with additional information overlaid on the image is evidence of poor quality? The Check 21 Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation CC, Subpart D, provide for certain information to be placed over the original image. It is permissible to add information to images so long as the overlay does not obscure any of the key elements needed for posting and subsequent processing. At the beginning of this document, it was stated that developing and following an objective definition of image quality has proven elusive. While the primary focus of this document is on image usability, the industry is continuing to develop and implement standardized image defect metrics tools. Such tools could provide a valuable ability to monitor the health of the industry and of individual participants in their management of the check collection and return systems.
Resources for Guidance on Industry Practice for Image Quality and Usability (Please note that X9 standards are updated periodically) 1. FSTC Image Quality and Usability Assurance: Phase 1 0Hhttp://www.fstc.org/docs/prm/IQ&U_P1_Final_Report.pdf 2. FSTC Image Quality and Usability Assurance: Phase 1 Project Image Defect Metrics 1Hhttp://www.fstc.org/docs/prm/FSTC_Image_Defect_Metrics.pdf 3. FSTC s final report Phase 2 Image Quality and Usability Assurance 2Hhttp://www.fstc.org/docs/prm/IQUfinalreport2005-12-16.pdf 4. ANS X9.7-1999 Bank Check Background and Numerical Convenience Amount Field Specification 5. ANS X9.100-10-2006 Paper Specifications for MICR Documents 6. ANS X9.100-20-2006 Print and Test Specifications for Magnetic Ink Printing (MICR) 7. ANS X9.100-40-1-2006 Specifications for Check Image Tests Part 1 - Definition of Elements and Structures for Check Image Tests 8. ANS X9.100-40-2-2006 Specifications for Check Image Tests Part 2: Applications and Registration Procedures for Check Image Tests 9. ANS X9.100-111-2004 Specification for Check Endorsements 10. ANS X9.100-140-2004 Specification for an Image Replacement Document IRD 11. ANS X9.100-151-2004 Check Correction Strip Specification 12. ANS X9.100-160-1-2004 Part 1: Placement and Location of Magnetic Ink Printing (MICR) 13. ANS X9.100-180-2006 Specifications for Electronic Exchange of Check and Image Data 14. ANS X9.100-181-2007 Specifications for TIFF Image Format for Image Exchange 15. DSTU X9.37-2003 Specifications for Electronic Exchange of Check and Image Data 16. DSTU X9.100-172-2007 Specifications for Validation of Interoperable Check Security Features (ICSF) Part1 Overview and Security Marks Part2 Data Definitions Part3 Message Definitions Part 4 Applications and Registration Policies and Process 17. X9 s TR 2-2005 Understanding, Designing and Producing Checks 18. X9 s TR 6-2000 Guide to Quality MICR Printing and Evaluation 19. X9 s TR 8-2001 Check Security Guideline 20. X9 s TR 33-2006 Check Image Quality Assurance Standards and Processes 21. X9 Registry Documents at 3Hhttp://www.x9.org/standards/registry/