Records / audit trail / digital workflows / use of user credentials / Record-keeping and audit trail for “under supervision” in digital/segregated advisory workflows

I would like to request a general clarification on the interpretation of the ESMA Guidelines ESMA/2015/1886 (rev.) regarding record-keeping requirements for “under supervision” (in particular paragraphs 19, 20(c) and 20(g)). In practice, client communication, suitability documentation and system completion are often performed in a segregated and digital manner (e.g. different staff members involved in the client interaction, documentation and approval). This raises, in particular, the following questions: 1. Minimum requirements for records / traceability What minimum requirements arise from the Guidelines regarding records to enable the competent authority to verify that supervision actually takes place and is carried out to an appropriate extent? 2. Objective evidence of assumption of responsibility Is the mere formal naming of a qualified person in the documentation (e.g. in the suitability statement) sufficient, or do the Guidelines expect objectively verifiable review/approval/sign-off evidence? 3. Digital processes / segregated documentation What requirements apply in digital systems and segregated documentation workflows where client communication, suitability documentation and system completion are not carried out by the same person? 4. Use of user credentials / role awareness How should “under supervision” be assessed under the Guidelines if user credentials of a qualified person are used for system documentation/system completion, but that person does not provide a conscious assumption of responsibility (review/approval/sign-off) or is not aware that they are intended to act as the supervisor?