Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c166/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

Rate the integrity of the tools’ persistent memory against contamination by incorrect or malicious content encountered during work

Study Data · Part 2 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# Rate the integrity of the tools' persistent memory against contamination by incorrect or malicious content encountered during work

Indicator C166 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

22 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of RatingsCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C166 |
| Question as asked | Rate the integrity of the tools' persistent memory against contamination by incorrect or malicious content encountered during work. |
| Failure category | AI technology |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.4 AI > Memory and Context Integrity |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Rated, POS |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, higher is the better outcome |
| Answering base | 806 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 44 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 9 responses from 9 respondents on 8 engagements (9 primary, 0 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

Table 2. Key results: association of the indicator with the four study measuresTable

| Measure | Form | n | r | 95% CI | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | 150 engagements | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.58 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.64 | 0.51 to 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | 150 engagements | 0.87 | 0.82 to 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 760 respondents | −0.65 | −0.71 to −0.59 | < 0.001 |

The mean rating was 4.6 and the median 4.0 (n = 806 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 31.89% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.68, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.58, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.75, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.90, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.65, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.71 to −0.59, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 760 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 56.27, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.453), respondent role (Welch F 5.69, Holm p = 0.030, omega squared 0.010) and vendor type (Welch F 3.40, Holm p = 0.030, omega squared 0.015).

Nine written responses addressed the indicator, all from C177, the comment field on the AI tools. Eight were negative and none positive. The negative responses described wrong content that the tool stored and reused in later work until a person noticed and cleared it.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 806) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 51 | 6.33% | 6.33% | 33 | 22.00% | Yes |
| 2 | 99 | 12.28% | 18.61% | 57 | 38.00% | Yes |
| 3 | 107 | 13.28% | 31.89% | 71 | 47.33% | Yes |
| 4 | 148 | 18.36% | 50.25% | 93 | 62.00% | No |
| 5 | 138 | 17.12% | 67.37% | 84 | 56.00% | No |
| 6 | 113 | 14.02% | 81.39% | 65 | 43.33% | No |
| 7 | 78 | 9.68% | 91.07% | 52 | 34.67% | No |
| 8 | 50 | 6.20% | 97.27% | 34 | 22.67% | No |
| 9 | 16 | 1.99% | 99.26% | 13 | 8.67% | No |
| 10 | 6 | 0.74% | 100.00% | 5 | 3.33% | No |
| I do not know | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 806 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of ratings, engagement levelTable

| Engagement level summary | Engagements | Mean of engagement means | SD | Min | Median | Max | Engagements with a distressed mean | Share of engagements distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement means, goodness view | 150 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 8.8 | 32 | 21.33% |

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 257 of the 806 answers (31.89%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 32 of 150 engagements.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 9 responses)ExhibitNote: The bar is C177, the written-answer question of the indicator's survey section, so every response is primary. Labels give counts. C177 asked: “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture.”Table 5. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 0 of 9 | ‡ |
| Secondary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | None |
| All responses | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 0 of 9 | ‡ |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The nine responses were primary. Each answered C177, “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture.” No response from any other question addressed the indicator.

Eight responses described wrong content kept by the tool and reused. A bad line in one custodian statement shaped the reading of the next file. A wrong routing, once learned, was repeated with confidence. Last month's exception rule was carried into a new cycle twice without anyone seeing it. A wrong refund window taken from an old merchant note stayed in use for weeks until a staff member, not the system, found it. An answer from an earlier due diligence questionnaire was reused for a different fund, and a wrong expected result was carried across three test suites.

Two responses described clearing the memory or opening a new session for every batch, and one respondent said nobody could explain what else was lost when the memory was cleared. Two described a manual check of about two extra hours added to every day. One of these respondents said the checking had contributed to a senior colleague's departure. The neutral response said contamination could not be observed directly and surfaced only when a figure came out wrong.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 9 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the number of responses at each score. With fewer than 10 responses, labels give counts and no shares.

One response carried the strongest negative score of −10, seven carried −5 and one was neutral. With fewer than 10 responses, the distribution is reported as counts only.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 806 | 94.82% of 850 | 150 | 4.6 | 4.4 to 4.7 | 2.1 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 223 | 96.12% of 232 | 42 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 5.0 | 2.2 |
| ITO | 244 | 232 | 95.08% of 244 | 40 | 4.7 | 4.5 to 5.0 | 2.0 |
| BPO | 209 | 200 | 95.69% of 209 | 37 | 4.2 | 4.0 to 4.5 | 2.0 |
| KPO | 165 | 151 | 91.52% of 165 | 31 | 4.6 | 4.3 to 4.9 | 2.1 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 125 | 94.70% of 132 | 24 | 4.3 | 3.9 to 4.7 | 2.2 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 136 | 97.14% of 140 | 23 | 4.5 | 4.1 to 4.8 | 2.2 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 99 | 94.29% of 105 | 19 | 4.4 | 4.0 to 4.8 | 2.0 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 71 | 91.03% of 78 | 14 | 4.8 | 4.3 to 5.3 | 2.3 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 76 | 92.68% of 82 | 13 | 5.0 | 4.6 to 5.4 | 1.8 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 67 | 94.37% of 71 | 13 | 4.6 | 4.2 to 5.1 | 1.9 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 4.0 | 3.6 to 4.4 | 1.8 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 70 | 95.89% of 73 | 12 | 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.2 | 2.2 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 56 | 98.25% of 57 | 11 | 5.2 | 4.6 to 5.8 | 2.2 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 38 | 97.44% of 39 | 9 | 4.7 | 4.3 to 5.0 | 1.1 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 236 | 95.16% of 248 | 47 | 4.6 | 4.3 to 4.8 | 2.1 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 197 | 96.57% of 204 | 35 | 5.0 | 4.8 to 5.3 | 1.9 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 87 | 92.55% of 94 | 16 | 4.3 | 3.8 to 4.8 | 2.3 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 77 | 96.25% of 80 | 15 | 4.2 | 3.7 to 4.6 | 2.0 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 67 | 91.78% of 73 | 12 | 4.5 | 4.1 to 4.8 | 1.5 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 9 | 4.9 | 4.5 to 5.4 | 1.6 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 48 | 94.12% of 51 | 9 | 4.1 | 3.4 to 4.8 | 2.5 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 41 | 95.35% of 43 | 7 | 4.0 | 3.4 to 4.5 | 1.9 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 427 | 94.68% of 451 | 76 | 4.4 | 4.2 to 4.6 | 2.0 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 379 | 94.99% of 399 | 74 | 4.8 | 4.6 to 5.0 | 2.1 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 160 | 91.43% of 175 | 31 | 5.5 | 5.2 to 5.8 | 1.9 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 242 | 96.80% of 250 | 43 | 5.5 | 5.3 to 5.7 | 1.7 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 99 | 96.12% of 103 | 20 | 5.2 | 4.8 to 5.6 | 2.0 |
| Canceled | 322 | 305 | 94.72% of 322 | 56 | 3.1 | 2.9 to 3.3 | 1.6 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 625 | 93.70% of 667 | 150 | 4.4 | 4.3 to 4.6 | 2.1 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 4.9 | 4.6 to 5.2 | 2.0 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 30 | 96.77% of 31 | 30 | 5.3 | 4.7 to 5.9 | 1.7 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 1 | 1 of 2 | 1 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 301 | 95.25% of 316 | 59 | 4.7 | 4.5 to 4.9 | 2.1 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 190 | 95.96% of 198 | 37 | 4.2 | 3.9 to 4.5 | 2.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 106 | 90.60% of 117 | 23 | 5.1 | 4.7 to 5.5 | 2.1 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 83 | 95.40% of 87 | 17 | 4.6 | 4.2 to 5.0 | 1.9 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 73 | 97.33% of 75 | 14 | 4.3 | 3.8 to 4.7 | 2.0 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 44 | 4.3 | 3.8 to 4.8 | 1.9 |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 257 | 31.89% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 74 | 33.18% |
| ITO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 63 | 27.16% |
| BPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 75 | 37.50% |
| KPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 45 | 29.80% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 52 | 41.60% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 47 | 34.56% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 34 | 34.34% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 20 | 28.17% |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 13 | 17.11% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 21 | 31.34% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 28 | 41.18% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 22 | 31.43% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 13 | 23.21% |
| Private equity and private capital | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7 | 18.42% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 81 | 34.32% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 45 | 22.84% |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 36 | 41.38% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 31 | 40.26% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 15 | 22.39% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 10 | 18.87% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 20 | 41.67% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 19 | 46.34% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 149 | 34.89% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 108 | 28.50% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 21 | 13.13% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 30 | 12.40% |
| Active, Production | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 10.0 | 20 | 20.20% |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 186 | 60.98% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 214 | 34.24% |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 3.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 38 | 25.33% |
| Portfolio Director | 2.0 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 5 | 16.67% |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 87 | 28.90% |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 78 | 41.05% |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 10.0 | 26 | 24.53% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 22 | 26.51% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 27 | 36.99% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 17 | 32.08% |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Every figure in the segment tables is at respondent level. Segments with fewer than 30 respondents carry no interval. Segments with fewer than 10 report counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.79 | 3, 78.7 | 0.501 | 1.000 | −0.006 | 0.000 to 0.042 |
| Institution type | 0.65 | 8, 49.6 | 0.733 | 1.000 | −0.024 | 0.000 to 0.034 |
| Process family | 0.94 | 4, 40.3 | 0.453 | 1.000 | −0.004 | 0.000 to 0.061 |
| Class of work | 2.33 | 1, 146.5 | 0.129 | 0.515 | 0.009 | 0.000 to 0.063 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 56.27 | 3, 55.1 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.453 | 0.360 to 0.536 |
| Respondent role | 5.69 | 2, 75.2 | 0.005 | 0.030 | 0.010 | 0.002 to 0.026 |
| Vendor type | 3.40 | 5, 237.3 | 0.005 | 0.030 | 0.015 | 0.004 to 0.035 |

Table 7b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment family | Kruskal-Wallis H | p | Distressed chi-square | df | p | Cramer's V | Levels excluded |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 2.43 | 0.487 | 1.70 | 3 | 0.637 | 0.11 | None |
| Institution type | 5.76 | 0.674 | 5.28 | 8 | 0.744, simulated | 0.19 | Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | 4.61 | 0.330 | 7.35 | 4 | 0.117, simulated | 0.24 | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | 1.98 | 0.159 | 2.28 | 1 | 0.131 | 0.12 | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 76.94 | < 0.001 | 56.28 | 3 | < 0.001, simulated | 0.61 | None |
| Respondent role | 10.28 | 0.006 | 7.75 | 2 | 0.021 | 0.10 | Customer Management Executive, n = 1 |
| Vendor type | 18.05 | 0.003 | 13.21 | 5 | 0.022 | 0.13 | None |

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Where an expected count fell below 5, the test of the distressed share used Fisher's exact test for a two-by-two table, marked exact, or a Monte Carlo test, marked simulated. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 56.27, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.453). Active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over rated highest (mean 5.5, n = 242 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.1, n = 305 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 5.69, Holm p = 0.030, omega squared 0.010). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.3, n = 30 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.4, n = 625 respondents). Ratings also differed by vendor type (Welch F 3.40, Holm p = 0.030, omega squared 0.015). Consulting firms rated highest (mean 5.1, n = 106 respondents) and BPO specialists lowest (mean 4.2, n = 190 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

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.

Table 8a. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Point-biserial r | 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 56 | 37.33% of 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.58 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.62 | −0.78 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.71 | −0.84 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.71 | −0.84 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.74 | −0.87 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.71 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.55 | † | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.70 | † | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.60 | † | 0.029 | 0.087 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.68 | † | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.38 | † | 0.217 | 0.217 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.78 | † | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.85 | † | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.67 | −0.80 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.70 | −0.84 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.73 | † | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.76 | † | < 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.50 | † | 0.097 | 0.194 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 1 | 1 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 4 | 4 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 3 | 3 of 7 | ‡ | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 30 | 39.47% of 76 | −0.71 | −0.80 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.66 | −0.77 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | a | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0 | 0.00% of 43 | a | | | |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0 | 0.00% of 20 | a | | | |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | a | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: no variation in cancellation.Table 8b. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Odds ratio per point | 95% CI | AUC | Rate, distressed engagements | Rate, other engagements | Fisher p | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.15 | 0.08 to 0.28 | 0.93 | 93.75% of 32 | 22.03% of 118 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.28 | 0.12 to 0.64 | 0.89 | 7 of 9 | 24.24% of 33 | 0.005 | 0.995 |
| ITO | 0.12 | 0.03 to 0.45 | 0.94 | 6 of 6 | 26.47% of 34 | 0.001 | 1.000 |
| BPO | 0.02 | 0.00 to 0.33 | 0.97 | 100.00% of 10 | 14.81% of 27 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| KPO | 0.01 | a | 0.97 | 7 of 7 | 20.83% of 24 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.00 | † n = 24 | 0.99 | 8 of 8 | 31.25% of 16 | 0.002 | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.22 | † n = 23 | 0.93 | 6 of 7 | 12.50% of 16 | 0.002 | 0.995 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.24 | † n = 19 | 0.81 | 3 of 3 | 37.50% of 16 | 0.087 | 0.893 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.01 | † n = 14 | 0.96 | 2 of 2 | 25.00% of 12 | 0.110 | 0.969 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.25 | † n = 13 | 0.85 | 1 of 1 | 25.00% of 12 | 0.308 | 0.891 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.02 | † n = 13 | 1.00 | 3 of 3 | 0.00% of 10 | 0.003 | 0.949 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.48 | † n = 12 | 0.67 | 2 of 3 | 3 of 9 | 0.523 | 0.613 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.01 | † n = 12 | 0.97 | 3 of 3 | 1 of 9 | 0.018 | 0.987 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.22 | † n = 11 | 1.00 | 2 of 2 | 1 of 9 | 0.055 | 0.996 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.21 | 0.08 to 0.54 | 0.91 | 90.91% of 11 | 25.00% of 36 | < 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.10 | 0.02 to 0.50 | 0.95 | 4 of 4 | 19.35% of 31 | 0.004 | 0.999 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.29 | † n = 16 | 0.87 | 4 of 5 | 45.45% of 11 | 0.308 | 0.987 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.02 | † n = 15 | 0.96 | 6 of 6 | 2 of 9 | 0.007 | 0.991 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.15 | † n = 12 | 0.83 | 1 of 1 | 9.09% of 11 | 0.167 | 0.765 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.13 | 0.06 to 0.32 | 0.93 | 95.00% of 20 | 19.64% of 56 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.18 | 0.08 to 0.41 | 0.92 | 91.67% of 12 | 24.19% of 62 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | b | | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | b | | | | | | |
| Active, Production | b | | | | | | |
| Canceled | b | | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not estimable: too few events in one group. b Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.68, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.58, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fifteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Table 9a. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Active engagements | Clean r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | 0.64 | 0.51 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.66 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.73 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.72 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.44 | † | 0.029 | 0.087 | 0.39 | 0.055 |
| BPO | 23 | 0.78 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.76 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.48 | † | 0.135 | 0.135 | 0.43 | 0.183 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | 0.60 | † | 0.017 | 0.087 | 0.57 | 0.025 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.71 | † | 0.021 | 0.087 | 0.56 | 0.095 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.84 | † | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.92 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | 0.68 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.41 | † | 0.044 | 0.088 | 0.32 | 0.120 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.87 | † | 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.84 | 0.002 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.74 | 0.57 to 0.85 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.57 | 0.35 to 0.74 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.56 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.67 | 0.41 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.75 | 0.58 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.55 | † | 0.012 | 0.073 | 0.54 | 0.015 |
| Canceled | 0 | a | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.Table 9b. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Slope, points per rating point | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | All engagements | Descriptive r | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 5.23 | 3.95 to 6.52 | 0.42 | 1.000 | 150 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 5.40 | † n = 27 | 0.54 | 0.999 | 42 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 3.86 | † n = 25 | 0.19 | 0.771 | 40 | 0.72 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 6.28 | † n = 23 | 0.62 | 1.000 | 37 | 0.83 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 6.90 | † n = 19 | 0.57 | 0.997 | 31 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 3.26 | † n = 11 | 0.23 | 0.727 | 24 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 3.75 | † n = 15 | 0.36 | 0.911 | 23 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 5.33 | † n = 10 | 0.51 | 0.938 | 19 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 9.48 | † n = 10 | 0.71 | 0.992 | 13 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 5.11 | † n = 28 | 0.46 | 0.995 | 47 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 3.70 | † n = 25 | 0.16 | 0.716 | 35 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8.86 | † n = 10 | 0.76 | 0.997 | 12 | 0.75 | 0.005 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 5 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 4 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 7.32 | 5.30 to 9.34 | 0.55 | 1.000 | 76 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 3.85 | 2.22 to 5.48 | 0.33 | 0.989 | 74 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 4.33 | 2.51 to 6.16 | 0.45 | 0.996 | 31 | 0.67 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 7.71 | 5.55 to 9.87 | 0.56 | 1.000 | 43 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 3.76 | † | 0.30 | 0.897 | 20 | 0.55 | 0.012 |
| Canceled | a | | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.75, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in ten of the 16 segment levels tested.

## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator is one of the rated indicators. Each comparison therefore uses the mean recomputed without it.

Table 10a. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Leave-one-out r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 0.87 | 0.82 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.90 | 0.82 to 0.94 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.79 | 0.64 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.90 | 0.82 to 0.95 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.92 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.88 | 0.77 to 0.94 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.89 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.90 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.91 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.79 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.93 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.97 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.88 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.95 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.92 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.95 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.79 | † | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.58 | 0.049 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.94 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.94 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.82 | 0.002 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.88 | 0.79 to 0.93 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.77 | 0.59 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.96 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.90 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.82 | 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.88 | 0.82 to 0.93 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.87 | 0.80 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.76 | 0.55 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.77 | 0.62 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.57 | 0.36 to 0.72 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.46 | < 0.001 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 10b. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | r with indicator included | Change in r | Slope | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | Equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.69 to 0.82 | 0.76 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.78 | 0.66 to 0.90 | 0.81 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.49 to 0.82 | 0.63 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.77 | 0.64 to 0.90 | 0.81 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 0.64 to 0.97 | 0.78 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.73 | † n = 24 | 0.82 | 1.000 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.69 | † n = 23 | 0.83 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.60 | † n = 19 | 0.62 | 0.999 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.75 | † n = 14 | 0.87 | 1.000 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.95 | † n = 13 | 0.78 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.98 | † n = 13 | 0.85 | 1.000 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.62 | † n = 12 | 0.62 | 0.988 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.80 | † n = 12 | 0.88 | 1.000 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.71 | † n = 11 | 0.76 | 0.998 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.63 to 0.88 | 0.77 | 1.000 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.78 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.47 to 0.86 | 0.59 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.78 | † n = 16 | 0.93 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.73 | † n = 15 | 0.82 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.89 | † n = 12 | 0.71 | 0.997 | No |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.89 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.72 to 0.91 | 0.78 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.62 to 0.82 | 0.75 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0.76 | −0.01 | 0.54 | 0.36 to 0.71 | 0.57 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.78 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.57 to 0.96 | 0.60 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.68 | † n = 20 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Canceled | 0.58 | −0.01 | 0.42 | 0.25 to 0.58 | 0.33 | 0.993 | No |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.90, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-four of the 24 segment levels tested.

## Association with Intent to Leave

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. It is measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Table 11a. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Respondents | r | 95% CI | Cluster bootstrap 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 760 | −0.65 | −0.69 to −0.61 | −0.71 to −0.59 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 206 | −0.71 | −0.77 to −0.64 | −0.80 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 224 | −0.57 | −0.65 to −0.47 | −0.66 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 188 | −0.65 | −0.72 to −0.55 | −0.74 to −0.54 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 142 | −0.74 | −0.80 to −0.65 | −0.82 to −0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 116 | −0.68 | −0.77 to −0.57 | −0.79 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 129 | −0.67 | −0.75 to −0.56 | −0.81 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 95 | −0.49 | −0.63 to −0.32 | −0.63 to −0.25 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 65 | −0.79 | −0.87 to −0.67 | −0.90 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 70 | −0.54 | −0.68 to −0.34 | −0.69 to −0.35 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 65 | −0.76 | −0.85 to −0.63 | −0.84 to −0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 65 | −0.56 | −0.71 to −0.37 | −0.82 to −0.15 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 64 | −0.79 | −0.87 to −0.67 | −0.88 to −0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 54 | −0.75 | −0.85 to −0.60 | −0.84 to −0.51 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 37 | −0.58 | −0.76 to −0.31 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 217 | −0.73 | −0.79 to −0.66 | −0.81 to −0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 189 | −0.56 | −0.65 to −0.45 | −0.66 to −0.44 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 82 | −0.67 | −0.77 to −0.53 | −0.81 to −0.32 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 73 | −0.69 | −0.79 to −0.54 | −0.79 to −0.53 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 64 | −0.63 | −0.76 to −0.45 | −0.83 to −0.35 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 49 | −0.77 | −0.86 to −0.62 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 46 | −0.83 | −0.90 to −0.71 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 40 | −0.47 | −0.68 to −0.19 | § n = 7 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 402 | −0.63 | −0.69 to −0.57 | −0.71 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 358 | −0.68 | −0.73 to −0.62 | −0.75 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 151 | −0.53 | −0.64 to −0.41 | −0.68 to −0.36 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 229 | −0.52 | −0.61 to −0.42 | −0.66 to −0.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 91 | −0.54 | −0.67 to −0.37 | −0.75 to −0.28 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 289 | −0.14 | −0.25 to −0.02 | −0.28 to 0.00 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 579 | −0.67 | −0.71 to −0.62 | −0.72 to −0.61 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.52 | −0.71 to −0.53 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 30 | −0.49 | −0.72 to −0.16 | −0.74 to −0.17 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Customer Management Executive | 1 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 287 | −0.67 | −0.73 to −0.60 | −0.74 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 177 | −0.69 | −0.76 to −0.60 | −0.78 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 101 | −0.64 | −0.74 to −0.51 | −0.76 to −0.50 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 75 | −0.69 | −0.79 to −0.55 | −0.82 to −0.50 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 70 | −0.57 | −0.71 to −0.38 | −0.74 to −0.34 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 50 | −0.66 | −0.79 to −0.47 | −0.80 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |

Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 11b. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Spearman rho | p | Share at 7 or above, distressed | Share at 7 or above, other | Engagements | Engagement level r | 95% CI | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.65 | < 0.001 | 88.84% of 242 | 38.42% of 518 | 150 | −0.77 | −0.83 to −0.70 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.70 | < 0.001 | 80.60% of 67 | 28.06% of 139 | 42 | −0.81 | −0.89 to −0.67 | 1.000 |
| ITO | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 93.44% of 61 | 48.47% of 163 | 40 | −0.67 | −0.81 to −0.45 | 0.999 |
| BPO | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 88.73% of 71 | 33.33% of 117 | 37 | −0.80 | −0.89 to −0.65 | 1.000 |
| KPO | −0.73 | < 0.001 | 95.35% of 43 | 42.42% of 99 | 31 | −0.85 | −0.92 to −0.70 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 93.88% of 49 | 47.76% of 67 | 24 | −0.78 | † | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 84.09% of 44 | 30.59% of 85 | 23 | −0.77 | † | 0.999 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 90.63% of 32 | 52.38% of 63 | 19 | −0.61 | † | 0.943 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.79 | < 0.001 | 94.74% of 19 | 32.61% of 46 | 14 | −0.89 | † | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 90.91% of 11 | 40.68% of 59 | 13 | −0.76 | † | 0.985 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.76 | < 0.001 | 90.48% of 21 | 34.09% of 44 | 13 | −0.89 | † | 1.000 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.51 | < 0.001 | 73.08% of 26 | 43.59% of 39 | 12 | −0.72 | † | 0.962 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.80 | < 0.001 | 85.00% of 20 | 22.73% of 44 | 12 | −0.90 | † | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 13 | 29.27% of 41 | 11 | −0.86 | † | 0.997 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.55 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 7 | 50.00% of 30 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 89.33% of 75 | 38.73% of 142 | 47 | −0.83 | −0.90 to −0.72 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 88.37% of 43 | 38.36% of 146 | 35 | −0.66 | −0.81 to −0.42 | 0.997 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.54 | < 0.001 | 87.88% of 33 | 53.06% of 49 | 16 | −0.84 | † | 0.999 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 29 | 45.45% of 44 | 15 | −0.79 | † | 0.996 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 57.14% of 14 | 22.00% of 50 | 12 | −0.74 | † | 0.975 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.76 | < 0.001 | 90.00% of 10 | 30.77% of 39 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.81 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 19 | 33.33% of 27 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.50 | 0.001 | 84.21% of 19 | 47.62% of 21 | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 89.44% of 142 | 37.31% of 260 | 76 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.66 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 88.00% of 100 | 39.53% of 258 | 74 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.66 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 52.63% of 19 | 21.97% of 132 | 31 | −0.56 | −0.76 to −0.26 | 0.959 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 76.67% of 30 | 21.61% of 199 | 43 | −0.60 | −0.76 to −0.37 | 0.993 |
| Active, Production | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 42.11% of 19 | 16.67% of 72 | 20 | −0.60 | † | 0.943 |
| Canceled | −0.13 | 0.033 | 100.00% of 174 | 100.00% of 115 | 56 | 0.03 | −0.24 to 0.29 | 0.020 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 90.45% of 199 | 38.68% of 380 | 150 | −0.78 | −0.83 to −0.70 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 84.21% of 38 | 38.39% of 112 | 150 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.52 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | −0.49 | 0.006 | ‡ n = 5 | 36.00% of 25 | 30 | −0.49 | −0.72 to −0.16 | 0.880 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 88.24% of 85 | 39.11% of 202 | 59 | −0.77 | −0.86 to −0.64 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 86.30% of 73 | 39.42% of 104 | 37 | −0.80 | −0.89 to −0.64 | 1.000 |
| Consulting firm | −0.64 | < 0.001 | 92.00% of 25 | 38.16% of 76 | 23 | −0.75 | † | 0.998 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 95.00% of 20 | 43.64% of 55 | 17 | −0.86 | † | 1.000 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 92.00% of 25 | 22.22% of 45 | 14 | −0.69 | † | 0.964 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.65 | < 0.001 | 85.71% of 14 | 44.44% of 36 | 42 | −0.68 | −0.82 to −0.48 | 1.000 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.61, Holm p < 0.001, n = 760 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven of the 37 segment levels tested.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 12. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Form | Unit | n | r | 95% CI | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | Engagement | 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.58 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.64 | 0.51 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | Engagement | 150 | 0.87 | 0.82 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 760 | −0.65 | −0.71 to −0.59 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |

Table 13. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.10 | −5.04 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.19 | −5.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.08 | −2.49 | 0.013 | 0.025 | Differed |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.09 | −4.06 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.01 | 0.57 | 0.566 | 0.566 | Did not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.11 | 4.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, five of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with customer satisfaction the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and intent to leave did not differ (Holm p = 0.566).

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 14. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.4 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.58 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 3.56 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 806 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 227 | Nominal n divided by the design effect. |
| Cluster bootstrap applied | Yes | Applied to every respondent-level interval where the ICC is 0.05 or above. |

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.58). Clustering reduced the 806 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 227 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests of intent to leave used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 15. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | r | Equivalence bound | TOST p, lower | TOST p, upper | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 | Detection floor for this n |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 150 | −0.68 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.64 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.87 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 760, effective 213 | −0.65 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.99 | 0.19 | 0.23 |

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective sample size.

## Robustness Checks

Table 16. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.68 | −0.72 | a | −0.03 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.64 | 0.66 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.88 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.65 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.66 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.69 to 0.85 | −0.09 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.52 | −0.59 to −0.45 | 0.13 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.68 | −0.69 | −0.77 to −0.60 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.53 to 0.76 | 0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.83 to 0.91 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.66 | −0.70 to −0.62 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.68 | −0.67 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.64 | 0.64 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.86 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.68 | −0.68 | −0.75 to −0.61 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.54 to 0.74 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.83 to 0.90 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.65 | −0.71 to −0.59 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.68 | −0.68 | −0.78 to −0.55 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.36 to 0.73 | −0.07 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.77 to 0.90 | −0.03 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.65 | −0.67 | −0.72 to −0.61 | −0.01 | Yes |

Note: a No interval for this check.

Each change was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

All 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Where the primary test falls below 0.05, the check must also keep the sign of the primary correlation. The thin-base check removes the engagements in any level of outsourcing model or process family with fewer than 30 engagements. Institution type is not used for that check, because every one of its levels has fewer than 30 engagements.

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

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. The indicator is one of the rated indicators, and the engagement indicator mean was recomputed without it. The correction changed r by 0.00, from 0.87 to 0.87.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 17. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | The indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.68 | 0.60 | 0.08 | 1.71 | 0.086 | 0.346 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.06 | 1.62 | 0.106 | 0.346 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 1.51 | 0.131 | 0.346 |
| Intent to leave | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.05 | 1.42 | 0.155 | 0.346 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.05 | | | |
| Verdict | Typical | | | | | |

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on all four measures, and no deviation held after Holm correction.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 9 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give counts. C157: “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” C160: “Rate the end-to-end reliability of the tools on multi-step tasks, from first step to finished output.” C161: “Rate the predictability of the tools' token consumption for a given volume of work.” C165: “Rate how completely the tools captured material facts located anywhere in long documents, including mid-document content.” C021: “How likely are members of your current team to leave their jobs in the next 12 months?” C127: “Rate your employer's quality assurance capability for agents whose outputs are not identical every run.” C159: “Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once.” C164: “Rate how reliably the tools retained instructions and constraints given earlier in long tasks and sessions.” C170: “Rate how reliably the tools' built-in guardrails and safety controls held during production use.” C172: “Rate how accurately the tools' own reports of success or failure matched the actual outcomes of their work.” C176: “Rate the quality of the tools' logs, traces, and usage telemetry for detecting and diagnosing failures.” C188: “Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup.”

The responses also addressed twelve other indicators, most often C157, followed by C160, C161 and C165. The most frequent theme was a failure that recurs every cycle or most days.

## Interpretation of the Data

About a third of all ratings of the integrity of the tools' persistent memory fell in the distressed range (257 of 806 answers, 31.89%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated far below the three active stages (mean 3.1, n = 305 respondents).

Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings. The few respondents who wrote described a failure that persists silently, is found by a person rather than by the system, and is remedied by discarding memory wholesale. The written evidence rests on nine responses, a base of anecdote strength.

## Limitations

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.

Tests by respondent role and by vendor type treated respondents as independent. The section on clustering reports how far clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent-level figures.

Customer management executives gave 1 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Counts of written responses describe the respondents who wrote and not the study set of respondents. With nine responses, the written evidence supports counts only and no statistic.

## Definitions

Table 18. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | Ratings run from 1 to 10, from the worst outcome a respondent can report to the best. |
| Distressed | A rating of 3 or below. At engagement level, an engagement mean of 3 or below. |
| Answering base | Respondents who gave a rating from 1 to 10. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and excluded from the mean. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a value recorded for each respondent and computed across the respondents who answered. |
| Failure category | One of the five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy. The indicator belongs to AI technology. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's ratings on the rated indicators. The indicator is one of the rated indicators, so the mean is recomputed without it wherever the two are compared. |
| Written response | A written answer about the respondent's own engagement that addresses the indicator. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded. |
| Primary and secondary | A primary response answered the written-answer question of the indicator's survey section. A secondary response answered a question in another section and addressed the indicator in its content. |
| Written sentiment score | Each written response carries one of five scores: −10, −5, neutral, +5 or +10. The sign records whether the response described the state of the indicator as harmful or helpful to the engagement. The magnitude records its strength. A score of −10 marks a statement of totality, constancy or serious harm. |
| Cluster bootstrap | An interval computed by resampling engagements rather than responses, so that the responses from one engagement stay together. |
| Anecdote strength | A base under 10, reported as counts only. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 19. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C166, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C166, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 2,857 |
| Written responses | Quotes Master.jsonl, sha256 27da38085e2b13fd |
| Written sentiment scores | Quote Coding Rulebook, version 0.6, with section 21 |
| Written-response computation | qa_stats.py, sha256 74a61f3a96169da9. wfacts.py, sha256 b85fae20adf812a1. build_indicator.py, sha256 a97ad6e74627e11e |
| Written-response records | C166.qa.json, sha256 b14f718dbb403b88. C166.wfacts.json, sha256 983fa61878118ad7. Hand-written text handcraft/C166.json, sha256 f12607b471fe0af5 |