I discussed the process alteration with internal management

Of the 459 respondents who answered, 341 (74.29%) answered True and 118 (25.71%) answered False. At engagement level, the answer was associated with cancellation, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. Engagements whose respondents most often said they had discussed the process alteration with internal management were canceled less often (35.00% of 100 engagements against 65.22% of 23), recorded a higher engagement indicator mean and had lower intent to leave among their respondents. The association with customer satisfaction was not tested, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Of the 257 written responses, 225 were positive and 29 negative. The positive responses, nearly all under C210, said the respondent had told the team lead or manager, and some added that the financial institution was not told. Most negative responses came from respondents who had told no one, or no one above them.

Of the 459 respondents who answered, 341 (74.29%) answered True and 118 (25.71%) answered False. The non-answers were I prefer to not answer (13). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. True was the assigned answer on 100 engagements and False on 23, and 27 engagements were tied or unanswered and carry no assigned answer.

The primary responses numbered 255, written in answer to C210, C208 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 2 responses, 0.78% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. That secondary share ranked 11th 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 2. Negative responses made up 11.37% of primary responses (29 of 255) and 0 of the 2 secondary responses.

The 222 responses to C210 described how the alteration was handled within the vendor. In 173, the respondent said they told the team lead, manager or team, or that the lead or manager already knew. Respondents placed the alteration at a frequency, such as every cycle, most weeks or seven out of ten, in 122 responses, and said that telling the lead changed nothing at the financial institution in 21.

Across all questions, respondents said the financial institution was not told in 45 responses. Three responses said the financial institution had been told directly or in writing. In 17 of the 29 negative responses, the respondent said they had told no one, or no one above them, of the alteration, and in six the respondent had told the lead or manager and seen nothing change.

Of the 257 responses, 29 (11.28%, 95% CI 7.11% to 16.14%) were negative and 24 (9.34%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 225 (87.55%), and 3 were neutral. The mean written score was 4.0 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7, n = 257 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. The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 109 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 4.98, df 3, p = 0.174). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean 2.9, 104 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 5.0, 22 responses).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 249 responses, engagement managers 8.

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, 35 of 100 (35.00%) were canceled, against 15 of 23 (65.22%) of those whose respondents most often answered False (chi-square 7.08, p = 0.008, Cramer's V 0.24, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 1 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 was 62.9% (n = 65 engagements) where respondents most often answered True and 54.0% (n = 8 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

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 3.9 (n = 100 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 3.1 (n = 23 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 12.68, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.045, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 2 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 6.8 (n = 100 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 8.2 (n = 23 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 14.96, p < 0.001, omega squared 0.055, n = 123 engagements). The difference reached significance and held after Holm correction in 1 of the 2 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 126 other engagements, 41 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 24 engagements with a negative response, 16 (66.67%) were canceled, against 40 of the 126 other engagements (31.75%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.002). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 109 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.21, p = 0.031). Across 225 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.08, p = 0.215). Of the three comparisons, two 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 intent to leave (0.055) and weakest with the engagement indicator mean (0.045). The association with customer satisfaction was not tested and has no effect size.

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.25). Clustering reduced the 472 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 287 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

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

All five checks computed held. Four checks were not computed, because the primary test or the check had too few engagements in a level: the Kruskal-Wallis check for customer satisfaction, the check on active engagements alone for the engagement indicator mean, the check on active engagements alone for intent to leave and the respondent-level clustered check for customer satisfaction. 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, 11.28%, ranked 13th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, 4.0, ranked 13th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C205, “I have altered client processes”, in 167 of the 257 responses (64.98%). C207, “I or my management discussed process alteration with the client” (94 responses), C209, “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” (51 responses), C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” (41 responses) and C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (30 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 232 responses (90.27%). The second was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 64 responses.

Of the respondents who answered, 74.29% said they had discussed the process alteration with internal management. Engagements whose respondents most often said so were canceled less often, recorded a higher engagement indicator mean and reported lower intent to leave than those whose respondents most often said they had not. The association with customer satisfaction was not tested. Every check that could be computed held.

The written evidence describes disclosure that stopped inside the vendor. Respondents who discussed the alteration told the team lead or manager, and few responses said the financial institution had been told. Respondents who told no one described the same alterations made in silence. The associations do not establish that internal disclosure produced the outcomes.

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 (257 responses on 109 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 practice in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.

Only 23 engagements were assigned the answer False, so the comparisons rest on a small group.