Of course they pass system integrity. The whole point of the thing is not "it should be secure", it's "the user has not messed with it so we control it".
Well, yes? The law says that the bank should do the thing and the bank does the thing to the best of it's ability, given what people usually work there.
If the device is "insecure", doesn't that mean you - as a user - can exploit one of those insecurities to "mess with" the device without system integrity being aware?
Or are you saying the device is insecure BUT has no local privilege escalations you can take advantage of as a user?