You're saying that you don't need photo ID for your use case. I agree with that for your purpose, but it's not relevant to my criticism of the 100 points system for its purpose.
I lived in Norway for a couple of years. There I just opened a bank account online, giving them my person number - and they posted something to my address as registered with the government. But in Australia our privacy advocates killed the "Australia Card" idea, so instead we have a tax file number with all the disadvantages of a national ID number and none of the advantages...
Anyway, back the main point. To be totally frank with you I think photo IDs are largely bullshit security theatre. You're asking a human factor[tm] to look at a fuzzy photo taken 10 years ago and confirm that it looks similar enough to the person in front of them.
In the UK, for a passport, there's a chain of trust. You need a professional or some other trusted community member (vicar, doctor, lawyer etc.) to sign the back of the photo saying it's you, and to provide their contact info for further verification.
Not perfect, but I don't think many people are skilled enough to successfully procure a passport where the photo isn't of the named person).
"To be totally frank with you I think photo IDs are largely bullshit security theatre."
They're not 100% reliable, sure, but they're extremely useful in establishing whether the person in front of you matches a particular identity.
One excellent use case for photo ID: consumer lending. If you lend someone money, you need to establish that the person you give the money to is actually agreeing to pay you back, and to pay you interest.
In our case, we don't care at all what you look like, just that you're the same person we were talking to earlier - and ideally that you're the owner of the method being used to pay, though that's not always true or necessary. So the photo is meaningless to us.
Besides: who is looking at the photo and confirming that it's the same person as the one in front of them? Yep, an human. The whole point of this discussion is stopping the human making human-factor judgement calls.