Imagine you learned a specific guitar riff eight weeks ago. You could play it perfectly on day one, but each week your fingers drift a little — the timing shifts, the pressure changes. Now imagine a bouncer at a club door who identifies you by listening to that riff. The longer since you last proved it, the worse their accuracy. That's template ageing in keystroke dynamics, and this paper is the first controlled head-to-head measuring exactly how fast the riff decays across four different bouncers. The committed claim: template ageing in fixed-text keystroke dynamics is large, monotonic, and universal across matcher architectures, adding roughly 1.7 percentage points of equal error rate per week elapsed. But — and this is the structural insight — the choice of matcher dominates the choice of ageing management strategy. Baseline accuracy spans 12.6 points across the four mechanisms tested; the ageing-induced degradation over seven weeks spans only 2.3 points. Ageing never reorders the matchers. The best matcher on day one is still the best matcher on week seven. The study compares four architectures on a clean ladder: a scaled-Manhattan distance matcher (M1), a gradient-boosted classifier (M2), a TypeNet-style recurrent embedding model (M3), and a TypeFormer-style Transformer (M4). EER ranges from 14.6–27.2% at gap-zero to 25.5–37.1% at seven weeks. The subject-disjoint 5-fold protocol is critical — it means no subject appears in both training and test, which is the honest setup for biometric evaluation but one many prior studies skip. The integrity story is strong for a behavioural biometrics paper. The protocol is rigorous: 40 participants, fixed passwords, weekly sessions, subject-disjoint folds. The statistical apparatus includes mixed-effects models with p < 0.001 for the ageing effect. One surprising finding: M3 (the recurrent model) is the least accurate overall but ages significantly more slowly than M1 under every specification. Another: 58% of the recurrent model's fold-to-fold variance comes from random seed noise, versus 19% for the Transformer. Seed sensitivity is a real confounder the field has mostly ignored. The practical upshot is refreshingly clear. Don't pick your matcher to minimize ageing — pick the most accurate matcher and schedule re-enrolment to manage ageing. The authors recommend re-enrolment windows rather than architecture swaps. This is a useful engineering heuristic that cuts through the noise of prior studies claiming certain architectures 'resist ageing better.' The obvious gap is scale and ecological validity. Forty subjects typing four repetitions per week in a controlled setting is clean but small. Real-world keystroke dynamics involve variable keyboards, fatigue, injury, environmental noise, and much longer timescales. The eight-week window captures the initial decay curve but says nothing about whether ageing plateaus at 12 or 24 weeks. The authors also don't test adaptive re-enrolment strategies — they identify the problem but leave the engineering fix to future work. The deeper question this paper feeds into: can behavioural biometrics ever be reliable enough for continuous authentication in production systems? EERs of 14.6–27.2% at gap-zero — with the best matcher still above 14% — suggest keystroke dynamics alone aren't there yet, even before ageing kicks in. This is an honest, well-constructed study that measures a real effect precisely. It advances the field's self-knowledge more than its deployment readiness.
