Disclosure of Manual Alteration

Answers about discussion of manual alteration with vendor management were much more frequently affirmative than answers about discussion with the financial institution. The overall contrast pools answers to separate questions and does not describe a matched comparison of the same people.

“My own management told me to keep it at working level and not put it in the client summary. So there are two versions of the issue list and neither one is complete.” -Engagement Manager, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions

Across the three questions following personal manual alteration of data, processes, and AI outputs, 783 of 1,113 valid answers reported discussion with vendor management (70.35%). Discussion with the financial institution was reported in 13 of 1,004 valid answers (1.29%). These are pooled answers across three questions, not unique respondents or separate incidents. The two totals have different answering bases and do not form a matched comparison for every respondent.

Written descriptions also distinguished vendor management disclosure from financial institution disclosure, but the evidence was uneven across methods. Among the 2,410 method-based written answers, 309 from respondents on 119 engagements stated that vendor management had been told. Financial institution nondisclosure was described in 106 answers on 51 engagements, while disclosure was described in 26 on 19 engagements. Another 44 answers on 31 engagements stated that nobody had been told. These themes overlap and are not an exhaustive accounting of disclosure on all engagements.

we do this every week now, the informations from client side never matches whats current, i just fix it and move on, nobody outside my team knows how much we touch before it reaches new hires.”

INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTOR · CXM, Corporate and back-office functions

1 Disclosure to Vendor Management

Most respondents answering the internal-disclosure questions reported discussing manual alteration with vendor management, although discussion was less common for AI outputs than for data or processes. True answers numbered 292 of 401 for data (72.82%), 341 of 459 for processes (74.29%), and 150 of 253 for AI outputs (59.29%). Each percentage uses that question’s own valid-answer base.

Internal disclosure of data or process manual alteration was associated with a lower cancellation rate, a higher engagement indicator mean, and lower intent to leave at engagement level. The data comparison for engagement indicator mean did not retain statistical significance under the Kruskal–Wallis check, a rank-based comparison of groups, and its customer-satisfaction comparison could not be estimated. AI-output disclosure had no statistically significant engagement-level association, although two respondent-level checks accounting for clustering within engagements did. The differences limit a single interpretation of disclosure as beneficial.

“I revert back the numbers to match the Statement and keep the same in my own tracker… I told my Lead, we never discuss about it with the client.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

1.1 Internal Disclosure of Data Manual Alteration

Indicator C200 · I discussed the data alteration with internal management · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of data manual alteration with vendor management was reported by 292 of 401 respondents answering True or False (72.82%), while 109 answered False (27.18%). The reported share showed no statistically significant differences across the groups of study classifications after Holm correction. That correction adjusts comparisons within a defined family of tests to limit false-positive conclusions from multiple testing.

The cancellation rate was lower among engagements assigned True on internal data disclosure: 39.77% of 88 engagements, compared with 64.00% of 25 assigned False (chi-square 4.61, df = 1, p = 0.032, n = 113 engagements). Engagement indicator mean (Welch F 6.49, p = 0.014) and intent to leave (Welch F 9.59, p = 0.003) also differed, each on 113 engagements. The indicator-mean result did not retain statistical significance under the Kruskal–Wallis check. Active-engagement customer satisfaction could not be compared because fewer than two answer categories included at least 10 engagements.

The 210 indicator-specific written answers included 172 with positive sentiment and 37 with negative sentiment. Positive answers described telling a team lead or manager, sometimes while also stating that the financial institution was not told. Negative answers described telling nobody or nobody more senior than the respondent. The sentiment classification therefore concerns the subject of internal discussion and does not establish complete disclosure or adequate oversight.

“I dont say to client, only to my Lead… takes time I dont have, and if I pick wrong duplicate nobody would know.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“And this happen almost every week, i catch it before it move on. i tell my manager same day, because of that it stop right there, no need to trouble client with it.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“This is routine for my team now, we get bad informations every week and nobody fixes the Source, I clean it myself and tell my Lead, not the client” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions

1.2 Internal Disclosure of Process Manual Alteration

Indicator C206 · I discussed the process alteration with internal management · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of process manual alteration with vendor management was reported by 341 of 459 respondents answering True or False (74.29%), while 118 answered False (25.71%). No study classification family showed a statistically significant difference in the reported share after Holm correction.

The cancellation rate was 35.00% among the 100 engagements assigned True on internal process disclosure and 65.22% among the 23 assigned False (chi-square 7.08, df = 1, p = 0.008, n = 123 engagements). The True group also had a higher engagement indicator mean (Welch F 12.68, p = 0.001) and lower intent to leave (Welch F 14.96, p < 0.001), each on 123 engagements. Active-engagement customer satisfaction could not be compared because fewer than two answer categories included at least 10 engagements.

The 257 indicator-specific written answers included 225 with positive sentiment and 29 with negative sentiment. Respondents described reporting changes to the team lead after making them. Some also stated that the financial institution was not told, distinguishing internal discussion from disclosure to the financial institution.

“Same workaround every week, we do the fix and backfill the paperwork after. And training the next new hire on it is getting old.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“Every person on client side do process different way, we chase same point on every status call and nothing move, raising ticket take longer than doing fix myself so most time I just fix it and tell my lead after” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal

1.3 Internal Disclosure of AI-Output Manual Alteration

Indicator C212 · I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of AI-output manual alteration with vendor management was reported less often than discussion of data or process manual alteration. True answers numbered 150 of 253 valid answers (59.29%). No statistically significant differences across study classification families were detected after Holm correction.

Internal AI-output disclosure had no statistically significant engagement-level association with any of the four core measures. The existing tests reported chi-square 1.94 for cancellation (df = 1, p = 0.163, n = 93 engagements), Welch F 3.67 for active-engagement customer satisfaction (p = 0.063, n = 42 engagements), Welch F 3.13 for engagement indicator mean (p = 0.080, n = 93 engagements), and Welch F 2.32 for intent to leave (p = 0.131, n = 93 engagements). Two respondent-level checks accounting for clustering within engagements reached statistical significance for engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. That difference in analytical unit does not establish an engagement-level association where the primary tests did not detect one.

The 95 indicator-specific written answers included 67 with positive sentiment and 26 with negative sentiment. Respondents who reported no disclosure described correcting outputs without raising the issue, sometimes because earlier escalation had not changed the situation.

“This one i don't mention to anyone, not even my lead. Output changes between runs and i just pick version that looks right, nobody asks how it happened.” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions

“i do not raise this to anyone… it happen most days, i kindly correct the output myself and send it, there is no other option for me” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations

2 Disclosure to the Financial Institution

Discussion with the financial institution was rarely reported in the three structured disclosure questions. True answers numbered three of 366 for data, nine of 414 for processes, and one of 224 for AI outputs. No engagement was assigned True under the plurality rule, so an engagement-level comparison could not be estimated. That assignment result does not mean no individual respondent reported disclosure.

“I fix it quiet. And nobody official know except my team. Client never ask, I do not know if they hear. It happen every week, feels normal but not right.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions

“I do this most days now, my manager know about it, please note we dont tell client, half the records missing values every batch and somebody has to catch that before it break something downstream,” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations

2.1 Disclosure of Data Manual Alteration to the Financial Institution

Indicator C201 · I or my management discussed data alteration with the client · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of data manual alteration with the financial institution was reported in three of 366 valid True or False answers (0.82%). No engagement was assigned True under the plurality rule. The answers support a respondent-level description, while an engagement-level association with the core measures could not be estimated.

Of the 109 indicator-specific written answers, 96 had negative sentiment. At least 53 of those 96 stated that the financial institution was not told or that the manual alteration remained within the delivery team or vendor management. Eleven answers stated that the financial institution had been told, had requested correction, or had been shown the changes. These written-answer counts use a different source and definition from the direct True-or-False count.

“When source-system feeds arrive late or malformed, the team logs a data exception, shares the informations with the client's platform owner, and agrees the correction before it is applied upstream. Nothing touches client data outside that channel.” -Portfolio Director, ITO, Technology engineering and operations

“what they did is send us mortgage files that dont reconcile, happens most days at this point, I tell my Lead, we dont tell client,” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Credit, underwriting and suitability

2.2 Disclosure of Process Manual Alteration to the Financial Institution

Indicator C207 · I or my management discussed process alteration with the client · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of process manual alteration with the financial institution was reported in nine of 414 valid True or False answers (2.17%). No engagement was assigned True under the plurality rule. With fewer than two answer categories containing at least 10 engagements, none of the four engagement-level comparisons could be estimated.

Of the 124 indicator-specific written answers, 99 had negative sentiment. At least 57 of those 99 stated that the financial institution was not told or that the manual alteration remained within the delivery team or vendor management. Twelve answers stated that the financial institution had been told, and four described approval before a change was applied. These descriptions distinguish notification from prior approval, without independently verifying either.

“Same problem, they never gave us a real procedure, just a slide deck, so my team built our own steps, looped the client in as we went” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions

“I tell Lead every time, we dont tell client, happens most days, informations we get is never enough to wait on approval, know which call to make most times now” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions

2.3 Disclosure of AI-Output Manual Alteration to the Financial Institution

Indicator C213 · I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client · Full statistical analysis ›

Discussion of AI-output manual alteration with the financial institution was reported in one of 224 valid True or False answers. No engagement was assigned True under the plurality rule, so an engagement-level association could not be estimated. The individual True answer remains part of the descriptive result.

Of the 50 indicator-specific written answers, 43 had negative sentiment. At least 22 of those 43 stated that the financial institution was not told or that correction remained within the delivery team or vendor management. The single positive answer described telling both the financial institution and vendor leadership.

“We just patch the breaks ourselves and keep the queue moving, nobody upstairs asks how they got cleared. And I couldn't tell you if the client ever sees the real touch count.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“i tell team lead but not client… this happen maybe once a week, i fix informations in output before it go to review, otherwise sprint slip” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations

3 Sources of the Disclosures That Occurred

Engagement managers supplied all 13 True answers on financial institution discussion across the three structured questions. They supplied 14 valid True or False answers in total, while individual contributors supplied 990 valid answers and none was True. These are answer counts across questions and do not establish the number of unique people who disclosed manual alteration.

Individual contributors supplied 1,175 of the 1,189 True answers on personal manual alteration of data, processes, and AI outputs. On discussion with vendor management, 769 of their 1,099 answers were True (69.97%). The contrast concerns personal-action and disclosure answers with different bases, rather than a matched sequence of incidents.

“We do flag it, both internally and to the client, but flagging does not stop us doing it, strictly speaking the account still needs the composites finished on time.” -Engagement Manager, KPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“we have told the client directly that we alter their data before it reaches the model, and told our own management as well, also I am careful how that gets phrased since altering anything on their side sits close to a line we are not meant to cross without sign-off.” -Engagement Manager, CXM, Financial crime and client onboarding