Appendix B lists the analyzed indicators by code, with the question wording, survey section, analytical class, report location, and companion-analysis filename. A perceived-fact classification identifies information reported from the respondent’s perspective; it does not establish independent verification.
Code | Question as asked | Survey section | Class | Polarity | Where reported | Companion analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C005 | What is your role on this engagement? | 1.1 Role and Identity | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.1.1 | Part 4, C005 |
C006 | What country are you located in? | 1.1 Role and Identity | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.4 | None |
C007 | How many years of experience do you have in your career? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.2.1 | Part 4, C007 |
C008 | How many years of experience do you have with agentic AI? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.3.1 | Part 4, C008 |
C009 | How many years have you been working in the outsourcing industry? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.2.2 | Part 4, C009 |
C010 | How many years have you been working within the financial industry? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.2.3 | Part 4, C010 |
C011 | How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements have you worked on across your career, including this one? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.3.2 | Part 4, C011 |
C012 | How well do you know the financial industry? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 1.4.1 | Part 4, C012 |
C013 | How well do you know agentic AI specific to the financial industry? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 1.4.2 | Part 4, C013 |
C014 | Rate your overall agentic AI expertise. | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 1.4.3 | Part 4, C014 |
C015 | What professional certifications do you have? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.5.1 | Part 4, C015 |
C016 | What AI certifications do you have? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.5.2 | Part 4, C016 |
C017 | Where did you gain your AI knowledge? | 1.2 Experience and Expertise | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 1.5.3 | Part 4, C017 |
C018 | How happy are you with your current job? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 3.1.1 | Part 4, C018 |
C019 | How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 4, 5.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.4 | Part 4, C019 |
C020 | How happy is your extended team with the current engagement? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 3.1.2 | Part 4, C020 |
C021 | How likely are members of your current team to leave their jobs in the next 12 months? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 4, 5.1.2 | Part 4, C021 |
C022 | Compared to 5 years ago, I am happier with the work I am doing now. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 3.2.1 | Part 4, C022 |
C023 | Compared to 5 years ago, I am more likely to seek a new job. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 4, 5.2.1 | Part 4, C023 |
C024 | Compared to 5 years ago, the team I work with seems to be happier. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 3.2.2 | Part 4, C024 |
C025 | Compared to 5 years ago, the team I work with is more likely to seek a new job. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 4, 5.2.2 | Part 4, C025 |
C026 | I want to continue working on projects in the global financial industry. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 5.3.1 | Part 4, C026 |
C027 | I would prefer to work directly for a bank in one of their global capability centers. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Directional | Part 4, 5.3.2 | Part 4, C027 |
C028 | Working directly for a bank would be better than working for an outsourcing vendor. | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Directional | Part 4, 5.3.3 | Part 4, C028 |
C029 | What are your top 3 challenges that reduce your job satisfaction? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 3.3 | None |
C030 | What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job? | 1.3 Sentiment and Retention | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 4, 3.5 | None |
C031 | What type of a bank is the customer? | 2.1 Engagement Identification | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.1.1 | Part 1, C031 |
C032 | What is the outsourcing type? | 2.1 Engagement Identification | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.1 | Part 1, C032 |
C033 | Is the outsourcing engagement Corporate Functional, or Line of Business Operational? | 2.1 Engagement Identification | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.2 | Part 1, C033 |
C034 | What is the specific use case for this engagement? | 2.1 Engagement Identification | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.3 | None |
C035 | How long ago did this specific engagement start, in months? | 2.2 Timeline and Status | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.2 | Part 1, C035 |
C036 | What stage is the engagement in? | 2.2 Timeline and Status | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.2 | Part 1, C036 |
C037 | How many months has the engagement been in its current stage? | 2.2 Timeline and Status | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.3 | Part 1, C037 |
C038 | Per the current plan, how many months from today until the engagement reaches Production/Delivery? | 2.2 Timeline and Status | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.4 | Part 1, C038 |
C039 | If the engagement has not been canceled, how likely is the customer to cancel the engagement? | 2.2 Timeline and Status | Perceived fact | Lower is better | Part 1, 2.2.1 | Part 1, C039 |
C040 | How many people are on the vendor team for this engagement today? | 2.3 Scale and Team | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.6.1 | Part 1, C040 |
C041 | What was the peak vendor team headcount on this engagement to date? | 2.3 Scale and Team | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.6.2 | Part 1, C041 |
C042 | Per the current plan, how many people will be on the vendor team 12 months from now? | 2.3 Scale and Team | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.6.3 | Part 1, C042 |
C043 | How many AI agents are running in production on this engagement today? | 2.3 Scale and Team | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 1.2.1 | Part 1, C043 |
C044 | What is the pricing model for this engagement? | 2.4 Commercial Structure | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.4.1 | Part 1, C044 |
C045 | What is the contract term of this engagement, in months? | 2.4 Commercial Structure | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.4.2 | Part 1, C045 |
C046 | What is the annual contract value of this engagement, in USD? | 2.4 Commercial Structure | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.4.3 | Part 1, C046 |
C047 | I know the KPIs the customer uses to measure success. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 1, 3.2.4 | Part 1, C047 |
C048 | The customer is happy with the performance of the engagement at this stage. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 1, 3.1.2 | Part 1, C048 |
C049 | The engagement is meeting delivery dates successfully. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 1, 3.2.1 | Part 1, C049 |
C050 | The engagement is within budget. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 1, 3.2.2 | Part 1, C050 |
C051 | The engagement is not achieving stated KPIs. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 1, 3.2.3 | Part 1, C051 |
C052 | The dashboard and performance reports given to the customer are accurate. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 5, 1.4.1 | Part 5, C052 |
C053 | The vendor manipulates the dashboard and performance reports given to the customer. | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 5, 1.4.2 | Part 5, C053 |
C054 | Compared to 5 years ago, is manipulation of the dashboards and performance reports given to the customer more or less common now? | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Lower is better | Part 5, 1.4.3 | Part 5, C054 |
C055 | How does the vendor manipulate performance reports and dashboards? | 2.5 Performance and Delivery | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.4 | None |
C056 | What laws, regulations, and similar govern this outsourcing engagement? | 2.6 Regulatory Context | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 6.1 | None |
C057 | I fully understand how these laws, regulations, and similar affect the outsourcing engagement. | 2.6 Regulatory Context | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 5, 7.1.1 | Part 5, C057 |
C058 | My management team fully understands these laws, regulations, and similar, and how they affect the engagement. | 2.6 Regulatory Context | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 5, 7.1.2 | Part 5, C058 |
C059 | The customer's team actively discusses these laws, regulations, and similar with our team. | 2.6 Regulatory Context | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 5, 7.2.1 | Part 5, C059 |
C060 | The training available to me effectively teaches me about these laws, regulations, and similar. | 2.6 Regulatory Context | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 5, 7.3.1 | Part 5, C060 |
C062 | What is the customer's approximate total asset size, in USD? | 3.1 Institution Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.1.2 | Part 1, C062 |
C063 | Does the customer operate its own global capability centers? | 3.1 Institution Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.1.3 | Part 1, C063 |
C064 | How many months has your employer been serving this customer across all work, not just this engagement? | 3.1 Institution Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.2.1 | Part 1, C064 |
C065 | How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements does your employer run concurrently with this customer today? | 3.1 Institution Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.2.2 | Part 1, C065 |
C066 | The customer is scaling their agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | 3.2 Customer AI Strategy | Perceived fact | Directional | Part 1, 5.1.5 | Part 1, C066 |
C067 | The customer is increasing the number of agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | 3.2 Customer AI Strategy | Perceived fact | Directional | Part 1, 5.1.6 | Part 1, C067 |
C068 | The customer is shifting more work to their global capability centers. | 3.2 Customer AI Strategy | Perceived fact | Directional | Part 1, 5.1.4 | Part 1, C068 |
C069 | I trust the customer. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.1.1 | Part 4, C069 |
C070 | The customer knows and cares about me. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.1.2 | Part 4, C070 |
C071 | I talk with peers inside the customer regularly. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.2.1 | Part 4, C071 |
C072 | I talk with engagement management inside the customer regularly. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.2.2 | Part 4, C072 |
C073 | I talk with the customer's leadership team regularly. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.2.3 | Part 4, C073 |
C074 | I know how the customer feels about my team. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.1.3 | Part 4, C074 |
C075 | I know how the customer feels about the engagement I am on. | 3.3 Relationship and Communication | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.1.4 | Part 4, C075 |
C076 | What type of company is your employer? | 4.1 Vendor Profile | Engagement attribute | Not rated | Part 1, 5.5.1 | Part 1, C076 |
C077 | Approximately how many employees does your employer have worldwide? | 4.1 Vendor Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.5.2 | Part 1, C077 |
C078 | How many years has your employer been delivering agentic AI outsourcing? | 4.1 Vendor Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 1.2.2 | Part 1, C078 |
C079 | How many agentic AI engagements does your employer run for banks today? | 4.1 Vendor Profile | Perceived fact | Not rated | Part 1, 5.5.3 | Part 1, C079 |
C080 | My manager is effective. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 2.1.1 | Part 4, C080 |
C081 | My manager knows the financial industry well. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 2.1.2 | Part 4, C081 |
C082 | My manager knows agentic AI well. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 2.1.3 | Part 4, C082 |
C083 | My manager cares about me. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.3.1 | Part 4, C083 |
C084 | My manager cares about the larger team. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.3.2 | Part 4, C084 |
C085 | My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 2.1.4 | Part 4, C085 |
C086 | My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for global banks. | 4.2 My Manager | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 2.1.5 | Part 4, C086 |
C087 | My employer cares about me. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.4.1 | Part 4, C087 |
C088 | My employer cares about the team. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.4.2 | Part 4, C088 |
C089 | My employer's top leadership team cares about my wellbeing and development. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.4.3 | Part 4, C089 |
C090 | I trust my employer. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.4.4 | Part 4, C090 |
C091 | I trust my manager. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.3.3 | Part 4, C091 |
C092 | I am being used effectively by my employer. | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 4, 4.4.5 | Part 4, C092 |
C093 | Compared to 5 years ago, is my employer more or less prepared to manage outsourcing engagements? | 4.3 Employer Relationship | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.8.1 | Part 2, C093 |
C094 | Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.1.1 | Part 2, C094 |
C095 | Rate how accessible the customer's data is to this engagement when and where the work requires it. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.1.2 | Part 2, C095 |
C096 | Rate how well the customer's data is normalized, with consistent formats and definitions across source systems. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.1.3 | Part 2, C096 |
C097 | Rate the maturity of the customer's data governance over the data this engagement uses. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.1.4 | Part 2, C097 |
C098 | Rate how well the customer's legacy systems support the integration this engagement requires. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.2.1 | Part 2, C098 |
C099 | Rate the readiness of the customer's technical infrastructure to support the agentic AI this engagement deploys. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.2.2 | Part 2, C099 |
C100 | Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.3.1 | Part 2, C100 |
C101 | Rate the maturity of the customer's processes in scope, meaning how standardized and repeatable they are. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.3.2 | Part 2, C101 |
C102 | Rate how consistently the customer performs the same processes across its business units and regions. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.3.3 | Part 2, C102 |
C103 | Rate the customer's willingness to redesign processes for agentic AI rather than automate them as they are. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.3.4 | Part 2, C103 |
C104 | Rate the agentic AI knowledge and skills of the customer staff working with this engagement. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.4.2 | Part 2, C104 |
C105 | Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.5.1 | Part 2, C105 |
C106 | Rate the availability of the customer's subject matter experts when this engagement needs them. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.4.3 | Part 2, C106 |
C107 | Rate the customer organization's readiness to absorb the changes to daily work that agentic AI introduces. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.4.1 | Part 2, C107 |
C108 | Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.7.1 | Part 2, C108 |
C109 | Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.5.2 | Part 2, C109 |
C110 | Rate how well the customer's change control process handles the changes this engagement requires. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.6.3 | Part 2, C110 |
C111 | Rate the customer's capacity to govern and oversee the risks of AI agents doing this work. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.6.2 | Part 2, C111 |
C112 | Rate how clearly ownership and accountability for AI are assigned inside the customer organization. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.6.1 | Part 2, C112 |
C113 | Rate the stability of the customer's business case and ROI definition for this engagement. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 2.8.1 | Part 2, C113 |
C114 | Add any comments on the customer organization that the ratings in this section do not capture. | 5.1 Customer | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 2, 2 | None |
C115 | Rate the overall effectiveness of your employer's top leadership team. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.1.1 | Part 2, C115 |
C116 | Rate how well your employer is transforming its commercial model as agentic AI reduces the billable human effort it sells today. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.1.2 | Part 2, C116 |
C117 | Rate how well your employer's internal management processes have been redesigned for agentic AI delivery rather than traditional staffed delivery. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.2.1 | Part 2, C117 |
C118 | Rate the effectiveness of your employer's process and leadership development programs. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.5.2 | Part 2, C118 |
C119 | Rate your employer's ability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements end to end. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.2.2 | Part 2, C119 |
C120 | Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of the financial industry. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.3.1 | Part 2, C120 |
C121 | Rate your employer's ability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for global banks in particular. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.2.3 | Part 2, C121 |
C122 | Rate your employer's current supply of qualified agentic AI talent against what its engagements need. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.5.1 | Part 2, C122 |
C123 | Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.5.3 | Part 2, C123 |
C124 | Rate how well your employer's training programs build practical agentic AI skills. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.5.4 | Part 2, C124 |
C125 | Rate how well your employer's training programs build financial industry knowledge. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.5.5 | Part 2, C125 |
C126 | Rate the maturity of your employer's playbook for taking agentic use cases from concept to governed production. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.6.1 | Part 2, C126 |
C127 | Rate your employer's quality assurance capability for agents whose outputs are not identical every run. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.6.2 | Part 2, C127 |
C128 | Rate your employer's ability to price agentic work profitably when billable hours no longer measure the value delivered. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.1.3 | Part 2, C128 |
C129 | Rate how well the technical platforms your employer builds or licenses are optimized for agentic AI outsourcing. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.6.3 | Part 2, C129 |
C130 | Rate your employer's readiness to take accountability when an agent it operates makes a costly error. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.7.1 | Part 2, C130 |
C131 | Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.3.2 | Part 2, C131 |
C132 | Rate the depth of your employer's experience running agentic AI systems in live production, beyond pilots. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.4.1 | Part 2, C132 |
C133 | Rate your employer's ability to operate large numbers of agents in production, including monitoring and exception handling. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.4.2 | Part 2, C133 |
C134 | Rate your employer's overall qualification to deliver elite agentic AI outsourcing services to banks. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 4.2.4 | Part 2, C134 |
C135 | Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture. | 5.2 Vendor | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 2, 4 | None |
C136 | Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.1.1 | Part 2, C136 |
C137 | Rate how clearly the two firms have settled who decides what agents may do without human approval. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.1.2 | Part 2, C137 |
C138 | Rate how clearly ownership of each workflow step is assigned when agents, vendor staff, and customer staff work in the same process. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.1.3 | Part 2, C138 |
C139 | Rate how clearly accountability lands on one firm when an agent's action causes a problem in this engagement. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.1.4 | Part 2, C139 |
C140 | Rate how well the two firms maintain a single shared view of the risks that agent work introduces. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.2.1 | Part 2, C140 |
C141 | Rate how effectively the two firms manage issues arising from agent work as one team rather than through two separate processes. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.2.2 | Part 2, C141 |
C142 | Rate how well the speed of joint issue resolution matches the speed at which agent-caused problems can spread. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.2.3 | Part 2, C142 |
C143 | Rate how quickly the two firms together can stop an agent that is behaving badly in live operations. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.2.4 | Part 2, C143 |
C144 | Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.3.1 | Part 2, C144 |
C145 | Rate how well agent updates made by one firm become visible to the other firm before they take effect. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.3.2 | Part 2, C145 |
C146 | Rate how well the two firms jointly govern changes agents make to their own behavior between formal releases. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.3.3 | Part 2, C146 |
C147 | Rate how well human review points are placed across the two firms at the moments where agent errors would matter most. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.4.1 | Part 2, C147 |
C148 | Rate how well joint human review capacity keeps up with the volume of output the agents produce. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.4.2 | Part 2, C148 |
C149 | Rate how much genuine scrutiny agent outputs receive at human review points rather than routine approval. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.4.3 | Part 2, C149 |
C150 | Rate how reliably the joint quality assurance loop catches agent errors before they reach live operations. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.4.4 | Part 2, C150 |
C151 | Rate how well the quality measures both firms use capture the kinds of errors agents actually make. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.4.5 | Part 2, C151 |
C152 | Rate how fully each firm can see what the other firm's agents actually did when questions arise. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.5.1 | Part 2, C152 |
C153 | Rate how closely the speed of joint decision making matches the speed at which the agents act. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.5.2 | Part 2, C153 |
C154 | Rate how well today's joint governance model fits work performed by agents rather than work performed by people. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.5.3 | Part 2, C154 |
C155 | Rate how ready the joint management model is for the level of agent autonomy you expect in this engagement within two years. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 3.5.4 | Part 2, C155 |
C156 | Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture. | 5.3 Co-Management | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 2, 3 | None |
C157 | Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.2.1 | Part 2, C157 |
C158 | Rate the accuracy of citations, references, and quotations the tools produced against the real sources. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.2.2 | Part 2, C158 |
C159 | Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.2.3 | Part 2, C159 |
C160 | Rate the end-to-end reliability of the tools on multi-step tasks, from first step to finished output. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.2.4 | Part 2, C160 |
C161 | Rate the predictability of the tools' token consumption for a given volume of work. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.4.1 | Part 2, C161 |
C162 | Rate the efficiency of the tools' token use, considering retries, loops, and reprocessing needed to complete work. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.4.2 | Part 2, C162 |
C163 | Rate how completely the tools kept each client's and each session's information isolated from every other client and session. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.5.1 | Part 2, C163 |
C164 | Rate how reliably the tools retained instructions and constraints given earlier in long tasks and sessions. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.3.1 | Part 2, C164 |
C165 | Rate how completely the tools captured material facts located anywhere in long documents, including mid-document content. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.3.2 | Part 2, C165 |
C166 | Rate the integrity of the tools' persistent memory against contamination by incorrect or malicious content encountered during work. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.3.3 | Part 2, C166 |
C167 | Rate the tools' resistance to hostile instructions embedded in the content they read and process. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.5.3 | Part 2, C167 |
C168 | Rate how consistently the agents took only intended and authorized actions when operating connected tools and systems. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.6.1 | Part 2, C168 |
C169 | Rate how safely the tools handled sensitive data, with no exposure through outputs, logs, or connected systems. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.5.2 | Part 2, C169 |
C170 | Rate how reliably the tools' built-in guardrails and safety controls held during production use. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.6.2 | Part 2, C170 |
C171 | Rate the overall production readiness of the AI tools for bank-grade work as experienced on this engagement. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.1.1 | Part 2, C171 |
C172 | Rate how accurately the tools' own reports of success or failure matched the actual outcomes of their work. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.8.1 | Part 2, C172 |
C173 | Rate the tools' ability to explain and evidence how each output was produced, at the depth an audit requires. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.8.2 | Part 2, C173 |
C174 | Rate how well the tools supported reliable testing, meaning correct behavior could be proven before work went live. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.7.1 | Part 2, C174 |
C175 | Rate the stability of the tools' behavior over the engagement when nothing changed on the engagement side. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.7.2 | Part 2, C175 |
C176 | Rate the quality of the tools' logs, traces, and usage telemetry for detecting and diagnosing failures. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 5.8.3 | Part 2, C176 |
C177 | Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture. | 5.4 AI | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 2, 5 | None |
C178 | Rate how well the agents on this engagement are protected from breaking silently when a third party changes something without warning. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.2.1 | Part 2, C178 |
C179 | Rate the quality of the fallback the engagement has ready when a critical third-party feed, platform, or model stops working. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.7.1 | Part 2, C179 |
C180 | Rate the security posture of the third-party tools, platforms, and sub-processors the engagement's agents connect to. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.6.1 | Part 2, C180 |
C181 | Rate the quality of advance notice third-party providers give before changes that can affect the agents on this engagement. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.1.1 | Part 2, C181 |
C182 | Rate how reliably word of an upcoming third-party change reaches the people who operate the affected agents in time to act. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.1.2 | Part 2, C182 |
C183 | Rate the engagement's monitoring for unannounced changes in the third-party APIs, data feeds, and models its agents depend on. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.2.2 | Part 2, C183 |
C184 | Rate how well the contracts with third-party providers deal with provider changes that can break the agents on this engagement. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.4.1 | Part 2, C184 |
C185 | Rate how well the engagement absorbs model version deprecations and retirements forced by model providers. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.3.2 | Part 2, C185 |
C186 | Rate the availability of true machine interfaces, rather than screens built for humans, across the third-party systems the agents must use. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.5.1 | Part 2, C186 |
C187 | Rate the stability of the third-party APIs and data structures the agents depend on, from one provider release to the next. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.3.1 | Part 2, C187 |
C188 | Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.5.2 | Part 2, C188 |
C189 | Rate how well third-party rate limits and quotas hold up under the volume the agents on this engagement generate. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.5.3 | Part 2, C189 |
C190 | Rate the engagement's ability to still perform by hand the manual workarounds that once absorbed third-party quirks and breakage. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.7.2 | Part 2, C190 |
C191 | Rate how completely the engagement knows where humans used to quietly fix third-party data and interface problems before agents took over. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.7.3 | Part 2, C191 |
C192 | Rate how deliberately the quiet human fixes for third-party quirks were replaced with explicit checks when agents took over the work. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.7.4 | Part 2, C192 |
C193 | Rate how well the engagement manages its dependence on a small number of model and cloud providers. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.6.2 | Part 2, C193 |
C194 | Rate how well this engagement could keep operating if it had to switch its primary model or cloud provider. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.6.3 | Part 2, C194 |
C195 | Rate how well third-party licenses on this engagement cover work done by agents rather than named human users. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.4.2 | Part 2, C195 |
C196 | Rate how completely the engagement has mapped every third and fourth party its agents depend on, down the full chain. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.8.1 | Part 2, C196 |
C197 | Rate how well the engagement manages agent dependence on gated external rails such as payment networks and regulatory submission systems. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Higher is better | Part 2, 6.8.2 | Part 2, C197 |
C198 | Add any comments on the third-party ecosystem that the ratings in this section do not capture. | 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 2, 6 | None |
C199 | I have altered client-provided data | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.1.1 | Part 5, C199 |
C200 | I discussed the data alteration with internal management | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.1.1 | Part 5, C200 |
C201 | I or my management discussed data alteration with the client | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.2.1 | Part 5, C201 |
C202 | Why did you alter client provided data? | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 3.1 | None |
C203 | My greater team regularly alters client provided data. | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Directional | Part 5, 1.1.2 | Part 5, C203 |
C204 | Comment | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.1 | None |
C205 | I have altered client processes | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.2.1 | Part 5, C205 |
C206 | I discussed the process alteration with internal management | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.1.2 | Part 5, C206 |
C207 | I or my management discussed process alteration with the client | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.2.2 | Part 5, C207 |
C208 | Why did you alter client processes? | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 3.2 | None |
C209 | My greater team regularly alters client processes. | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Directional | Part 5, 1.2.2 | Part 5, C209 |
C210 | Comment | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.2 | None |
C211 | I have altered AI outputs | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.3.1 | Part 5, C211 |
C212 | I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.1.3 | Part 5, C212 |
C213 | I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 4.2.3 | Part 5, C213 |
C214 | Why did you alter AI outputs? | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 3.3 | None |
C215 | My greater team regularly alters AI outputs. | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Directional | Part 5, 1.3.2 | Part 5, C215 |
C216 | Comment | 5.6 Alterations | Respondent level | Not rated | Part 5, 1.3 | None |
Eng: Delivery location | Engagements sheet field: Delivery Location | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.4 | None |
Field: Bank Type | Engagements sheet field: Bank Type | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.1.1 | Part 1, Field: Bank Type |
Field: Outsourcing Type | Engagements sheet field: Outsourcing Type | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.1 | Part 1, Field: Outsourcing Type |
Field: Class of Work | Engagements sheet field: Corporate Functional or LOB Operational | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.2 | Part 1, Field: Class of Work |
Field: Use Case | Engagements sheet field: Use Case | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.3.3 | Part 1, Field: Use Case |
Field: Engagement Age | Engagements sheet field: Age of Engagement (Months) | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.2 | Part 1, Field: Engagement Age |
Field: Engagement Phase | Engagements sheet field: Engagement Phase | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 1.1.1 | Part 1, Field: Engagement Phase |
Field: Headcount | Engagements sheet field: Headcount | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 1, 5.6.1 | Part 1, Field: Headcount |
Field: IC Respondents | Engagements sheet field: IC Respondent Count | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 4, 1.1.1 | Part 4, Field: IC Respondents |
Field: PD Respondents | Engagements sheet field: PD Respondent Count | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 4, 1.1.1 | Part 4, Field: PD Respondents |
Field: CME Respondents | Engagements sheet field: CME Respondent Count | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 4, 1.1.1 | Part 4, Field: CME Respondents |
Field: Total Respondents | Engagements sheet field: Total Respondents | Engagements sheet | Engagement field | Not rated | Part 4, 1.1.1 | Part 4, Field: Total Respondents |
Measure: Cancellation | Measure: Cancellation | Study measure | Study measure | Not rated | Part 1, 2.1.1 | Part 1, Measure: Cancellation |
Measure: Satisfaction | Measure: Satisfaction | Study measure | Study measure | Not rated | Part 1, 3.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.3 | Part 1, Measure: Satisfaction |
Measure: Indicator Mean | Measure: Indicator Mean | Study measure | Study measure | Not rated | Part 1, 4.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.1 | Part 1, Measure: Indicator Mean |