The change has not yet been posted on the regulation website. I'll update this thread when it is. Meanwhile, I do wonder if a revision would have happened if AARP hadn't written its letter and if reporters didn't ask questions.

Wednesday afternoon, I heard back from the agency. It would be changing its policy documentation to say it's optional. It said the PIN verification was encouraged but callers could still go through the existing authentication method and no one was required to go to field offices.

Former SSA official @kathleenromig.bsky.social also pointed out to me that an anti-fraud measure that is considered optional could be easily evaded by a fraudster simply opting out. I asked the agency about that too.

I -- and other reporters -- pointed out to the press office that the documents the agency had posted in its policymaking didn't say it was optional. And the agency itself had said more people might need to go to field offices.

I was told "on background" that reporting that more people would need to go to field offices was "factually inaccurate and entirely misleading." A SSA spokesperson (who wouldn't share their name) said the anti-fraud measure was optional. But that's not what the policy said.