CDD and EDD are two levels of the same process, and the useful comparison is not a definition of each but a step-by-step account of what escalation changes. This page walks the file from identification through to review and marks what is different at the enhanced level, so your policy can describe a boundary rather than a mood.
Identification and verification: the same, with more corroboration
The customer is identified the same way at both levels. What changes at the enhanced level is how much independent corroboration is expected, and how tolerant the process is of gaps. At standard, a gap might be accepted with a note. At enhanced it should stop the file until it is closed or explicitly waived by an approver, because the whole point of escalating was that this customer warrants less benefit of the doubt.
The additional questions that define enhanced
Source of wealth and source of funds, an understanding of the expected activity, and for a business customer a deeper reading of the ownership. These produce narrative rather than fields, and the narrative is the deliverable: a paragraph another person could read to understand why this relationship makes sense. Firms that try to reduce enhanced due diligence to more tick-boxes end up with longer files that say nothing.
Approval and interval: the two mechanical differences
Enhanced files need a second person to accept them, by name and on a date, and they come back sooner. These two differences are mechanical and therefore enforceable by software, which is why they are the ones a record system should be strict about. The rest of the escalation is judgement, and judgement is best supported by making sure the approval and the date cannot be quietly skipped.
Questions people ask about cdd and edd
Is EDD a separate process from CDD?
No. It is the same process run to a higher standard, with two extra questions, an approval and a shorter clock.
Who decides that a customer needs EDD?
Your risk model, applied to factors written down in advance, with an override available to a named person who has to give a reason. Deciding it case by case without a model is how two identical customers get two different levels.
How should the policy describe the boundary?
As a rule about factors, not as a list of customer names. Rules survive staff changes and lists do not, and a rule can be applied to a customer type nobody had thought of when it was written.