I have altered client processes

Of the 841 respondents who answered, 490 (58.26%) answered True and 351 (41.74%) answered False. At engagement level, the answer was associated with all four study measures. Engagements whose respondents most often said they had altered the financial institution's processes were canceled more often (50.00% of 94 engagements against 15.22% of 46), and recorded lower customer satisfaction among active engagements, a lower engagement indicator mean and higher intent to leave.

After Holm correction, the share answering True differed by outsourcing model (chi-square 13.21, Holm p = 0.021, Cramer's V 0.31): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO” (69.42%, n = 206 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “CXM” (50.87%, n = 230 respondents). It also differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (chi-square 17.80, Holm p = 0.003, Cramer's V 0.36): the share answering True was highest among respondents on canceled engagements (73.73%, n = 316 respondents) and lowest among respondents on active engagements in Build-Out (45.14%, n = 175 respondents). It also differed by respondent role (chi-square 265.42, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.56): the share answering True was highest among individual contributors (72.66%, n = 662 respondents) and lowest among portfolio directors (0.00%, n = 31 respondents). It also differed by vendor type (chi-square 15.49, Holm p = 0.034, Cramer's V 0.14): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO specialist” (65.82%, n = 196 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “Consulting firm” (51.72%, n = 116 respondents). Institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

The 849 written responses came from 513 respondents on 137 engagements, and 841 were negative. The respondents who answered C208, on why they altered the processes, described decisions that no one on the financial institution's side would make in time, change approval built for one change a month, and procedures that were never written down or did not match practice. Those who commented under C210 described the change as routine, made first and recorded later or not at all, and largely out of the financial institution's sight.

Of the 841 respondents who answered, 490 (58.26%) answered True and 351 (41.74%) answered False. The non-answers were I prefer to not answer (6). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. True was the assigned answer on 94 engagements and False on 46, and 10 engagements were tied and carry no assigned answer.

The primary responses numbered 819, written in answer to C208, C210, C202, C204, C214 and C216, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 30 responses, 3.53% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. That secondary share ranked 4th from the highest among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 2.00%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 21. Negative responses made up 99.02% of primary responses (811 of 819) and 100.00% of secondary responses (30 of 30).

The 413 responses to C208 gave the reasons for altering the processes. Across 176 responses, respondents said no one would make or own the decision, so they made it themselves. Change approval appeared in 160: a board or forum that met monthly while the work changed several times a day, sign-off from three approvers who never met (20 responses), or a ticket that took longer than the fix (22). Respondents said the procedure was never written down, or was a slide and not a procedure, in 45 responses, and that the documented steps were not those followed, had not been updated, or differed from person to person in 79. Subject matter experts who were never available or questions that sat unanswered appeared in 68, and silence taken as approval in 13. In 16 responses, respondents said the process assumed a person would notice an error that the agent did not, and in 16 the team had rebuilt the workflow by watching the financial institution's staff.

The 333 responses to C210 described how the changes were handled. Respondents placed them every day, week, cycle or case, or at a stated rate per week, in 169 responses. The change was made first and recorded later, or not at all, in 33, and kept within the team, unreported or unlogged in 69. Respondents said the financial institution was not told, or that they did not know whether it was, in 43, and the team lead or manager appeared in 120, most often as someone who knew. Fourteen responses across the indicator said the financial institution had been told, knew or had asked for the changes.

Responses to C202 and C204 that also addressed the indicator described working around blocked access: a shared or borrowed login, a workaround credential, or access granted by the team itself, in 20 responses across all questions. Two positive responses said changes went through a joint forum or were agreed with the financial institution before they were applied.

Of the 849 responses, 841 (99.06%, 95% CI 98.37% to 99.64%) were negative and 233 (27.44%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 7 (0.82%), and 1 was neutral. The mean written score was −6.3 (95% CI −6.4 to −6.1, n = 849 responses), and the median was −5.0.

Each share is computed on the respondents who answered in that row. Rows with fewer than 10 respondents report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagements, and respondent role and vendor type on respondents. After Holm correction, the share answering True differed by outsourcing model (chi-square 13.21, Holm p = 0.021, Cramer's V 0.31): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO” (69.42%, n = 206 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “CXM” (50.87%, n = 230 respondents). It also differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (chi-square 17.80, Holm p = 0.003, Cramer's V 0.36): the share answering True was highest among respondents on canceled engagements (73.73%, n = 316 respondents) and lowest among respondents on active engagements in Build-Out (45.14%, n = 175 respondents). It also differed by respondent role (chi-square 265.42, Holm p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.56): the share answering True was highest among individual contributors (72.66%, n = 662 respondents) and lowest among portfolio directors (0.00%, n = 31 respondents). It also differed by vendor type (chi-square 15.49, Holm p = 0.034, Cramer's V 0.14): the share answering True was highest among respondents at vendors of the type “BPO specialist” (65.82%, n = 196 respondents) and lowest among respondents at vendors of the type “Consulting firm” (51.72%, n = 116 respondents). Institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 137 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 15.30, df 3, p = 0.002). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −6.6, 408 responses) and responses from active engagements in Build-Out the least negative (mean −5.8, 139 responses).

The role test compared individual contributors and engagement managers, the roles with 30 or more responses. Written sentiment did not differ (Kruskal-Wallis H 0.04, p = 0.838, n = 510 respondents): the mean written score was −6.3 for individual contributors (806 responses) and −6.3 for engagement managers (40 responses). Portfolio directors wrote 3 responses, reported as counts only.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation. Each test compares the engagements by their assigned answer, within the study set and within each segment.

Of the engagements whose respondents most often answered True, 47 of 94 (50.00%) were canceled, against 7 of 46 (15.22%) of those whose respondents most often answered False (chi-square 15.77, p < 0.001, Cramer's V 0.34, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 8 segment levels tested.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements.

Among active engagements, customer satisfaction had a mean of 59.9% (n = 47 engagements) where respondents most often answered True and 69.8% (n = 39 engagements) where they most often answered False (Welch F 17.72, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.161, n = 86 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 4 of the 5 segment levels tested.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level. The indicator is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

The engagement indicator mean was 3.4 (n = 94 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 5.3 (n = 46 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 64.36, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.330, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 10 of the 10 segment levels tested.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10 by up to 798 respondents. For the indicator, the comparison uses the mean intent to leave of each engagement.

The engagement mean of intent to leave was 7.6 (n = 94 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 5.2 (n = 46 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 36.02, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.208, n = 140 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 7 of the 10 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 13 other engagements, 13 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 137 engagements with a negative response, 56 (40.88%) were canceled, against 0 of the 13 other engagements (0.00%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.002). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 62.23% on 81 engagements against 75.69% on 13, Welch t −6.45, p < 0.001).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 137 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.32, p < 0.001). Across 478 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.23, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, all reached significance at 0.05.

Steiger's z compares two correlations. A categorical indicator yields an effect size across its levels and not a correlation, so the pairs of measures were not compared by test. On omega squared, the association was strongest with the engagement indicator mean (0.330) and weakest with cancellation (0.106).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.18). Clustering reduced the 847 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 458 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The equivalence bound is an omega squared of 0.090, the study's threshold for a negligible association expressed as variance explained.

All nine checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. The checks replace Welch's F with a Kruskal-Wallis test, repeat the tests on active engagements alone, and repeat them at respondent level with a Wald F clustered by engagement.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence.

A categorical indicator has no signed correlation with the study measures and therefore no profile against the study norm. The comparison by answer appears in the four association sections.

Among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 99.06%, ranked 4th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −6.3, ranked 7th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.”, in 229 of the 849 responses (26.97%). C206, “I discussed the process alteration with internal management” (167 responses), C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (138 responses), C209, “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” (103 responses) and C105, “Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement.” (94 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 154 responses (18.14%). The second was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 139 responses.

Of the respondents who answered, 58.26% said they had altered the financial institution's processes. Engagements whose respondents most often said so were canceled more often, recorded lower customer satisfaction and a lower engagement indicator mean, and their respondents reported higher intent to leave. Every association held under each of the robustness checks.

The written evidence describes process change as the delivery team's answer to decisions that did not come, approval cycles slower than the work, and procedures that did not exist or did not match practice. The changes were made first, recorded later or not at all, and rarely reported to the financial institution. The associations do not establish that the changes produced the outcomes. The written responses describe the changes as one response to the same gaps in decision rights and change control that the Part 5 ratings record.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal. The answer is the respondent's own report of an alteration and not a record of it.

Each engagement carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, and tied engagements are excluded from the engagement-level tests.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (849 responses on 137 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses are counted by sets of words stated in each rule. A response that described a reason in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.