ISO 8583 Parser
Free · Decoder · Updated 2026-08-09
online lookup

EMV CVM Results (Tag 9F34) Decoder

Tag 8E is the card's policy; tag 9F34 is what actually happened. Three bytes: the method performed, the condition it matched, and the outcome. Paste the hex and read all three at once.

('/en/articles/cvm-list', "CVM List (tag 8E): why one payment asks for a PIN and another doesn't")
Examples:

Three bytes, three questions

9F34 is fixed at three bytes and each answers a different question. Byte 1 is the CVM that was performed, coded exactly like the method byte of a CVM List rule — bits 6–1 are the method, b7 carries the same “apply the next rule on failure” flag the rule had. Byte 2 is the condition that rule was scoped to. Byte 3 is the outcome: 00 unknown, 01 failed, 02 successful.

Because bytes 1 and 2 are copied from the rule that fired, 9F34 tells you which entry in the CVM List the terminal landed on. That is why the two tags are read together: 8E is the policy, 9F34 is the line of it that executed.

Reading it against the CVM List

Take the first two bytes of 9F34 and find the matching two-byte rule in tag 8E. If it is the third rule, the first two were skipped — their conditions were not met, or the terminal did not support the method. That is the answer to “why did it ask for a signature instead of a PIN”, and you can walk it in the CVM List decoder.

The summary of the same event lands in TVR byte 3 — decode it here. TVR says a verification problem occurred; 9F34 says which method and which outcome. A TVR cardholder-verification bit set with a 9F34 result of 02 is worth a second look: something failed earlier in the walk even though the final method succeeded.

What the common values mean

410302 — plaintext PIN verified by the card, on a terminal that supports it, successful. The 40 bit says the rule would have fallen through to the next method had the PIN failed.

020001 — online enciphered PIN, always applicable, failed. If the transaction was still approved, the issuer approved it despite a failed PIN; that is a decision worth checking against your own rules.

1F0002 — no CVM required, always, successful: the small-amount path. Nothing was asked of the cardholder and that is the intended outcome, not a gap.

3F0000 — no CVM performed, outcome unknown. Common on contactless and on declines that never reached verification.

Do not confuse the three “result” tags. 9F34 is the cardholder verification outcome, 9F27 (CID) is the cryptogram type the card returned, and the CVR inside 9F10 is the card's own view of the whole transaction. All three get called “the result” in conversation and they answer different questions.