Reasonable Cause Holds

We are a small community bank that maintains strong connections with our customer base. From time to time, a customer we know well brings us a check for deposit that's accompanied by a seemingly legitimate backstory. But the appearance of the check, based on our experience leads us to believe that the check may not be paid because not ALL of the boxes can be checked to rule out that that it's a fraudulent check. Knowing our customers we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt by accepting the check for deposit and placing a Reasonable Cause hold for 4-5 days. Our acceptance of the check is done in good faith that our customer's story is legitimate and our Reasonable Cause hold is done as a means of ensuring that our customer doesn't end up on the wrong side of a scam. I have read several opinions which state the ONLY course of action that's entirely compliant is to refuse to accept the check for deposit. Most opinions are that we simply cannot place a hold for Reasonable Cause to Doubt Collectibility in this situation. Even after completing due diligence on the check and the facts offered by the customer, by refusing a check where some facts indicate authenticity and others indicate potential fraud, why would we not be allowed to try in good faith to accept the check, while protecting our customer from potential loss by way of a Reasonable Cause hold? After all, the teller has formed a "well grounded belief that the check MIGHT not be paid," but is also acting in good faith on behalf--and in favor--of our customer. We are all advocates for our customers, and simply refusing to accept a check for deposit simply because we couldn't check off EVERY box that it isn't a fraudulent check, seems counterintuitive to the consumer-favoring language of Reg CC.