Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c186/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

Rate the availability of true machine interfaces, rather than screens built for humans, across the third-party systems the agents must use

Study Data · Part 2 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# Rate the availability of true machine interfaces, rather than screens built for humans, across the third-party systems the agents must use

Indicator C186 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

27 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of RatingsCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentCorrespondence Between Ratings and Written SentimentRating Profile of Respondents Providing Written ResponsesDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsWritten Sentiment by SegmentAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveAssociation of Written Sentiment with the Study MeasuresComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormComparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 2 IndicatorsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C186 |
| Question as asked | Rate the availability of true machine interfaces, rather than screens built for humans, across the third-party systems the agents must use. |
| Failure category | Third-party ecosystem |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.5 3rd Party Ecosystem > API and Data Contract Quality |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Rated, POS |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, higher is the better outcome |
| Answering base | 802 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 48 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 60 responses from 59 respondents on 51 engagements (56 primary, 4 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 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.52 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.71 | 0.60 to 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | 150 engagements | 0.88 | 0.84 to 0.91 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 754 respondents | −0.66 | −0.72 to −0.60 | < 0.001 |

The mean rating was 4.6 and the median 5.0 (n = 802 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 29.80% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.63, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.52, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean computed without the indicator (r = 0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.66, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.72 to −0.60, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 754 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 34.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.378), respondent role (Welch F 8.66, Holm p = 0.002, omega squared 0.018) and vendor type (Welch F 3.24, Holm p = 0.038, omega squared 0.015).

Of the 60 written responses, nearly all from C198, the comment field on the third-party ecosystem, 49 were negative and 11 positive, and 36 carried the strongest negative score of −10. Every negative response described a third-party system with no machine interface, so that the agent clicked through user interfaces built for people or a person moved the data by hand. Engagements with a negative written response were canceled more often, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation, and respondents whose written responses were more negative reported higher intent to leave.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 802) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 86 | 10.72% | 10.72% | 41 | 27.33% | Yes |
| 2 | 69 | 8.60% | 19.33% | 50 | 33.33% | Yes |
| 3 | 84 | 10.47% | 29.80% | 59 | 39.33% | Yes |
| 4 | 149 | 18.58% | 48.38% | 91 | 60.67% | No |
| 5 | 129 | 16.08% | 64.46% | 81 | 54.00% | No |
| 6 | 114 | 14.21% | 78.68% | 73 | 48.67% | No |
| 7 | 90 | 11.22% | 89.90% | 56 | 37.33% | No |
| 8 | 55 | 6.86% | 96.76% | 34 | 22.67% | No |
| 9 | 21 | 2.62% | 99.38% | 15 | 10.00% | No |
| 10 | 5 | 0.62% | 100.00% | 4 | 2.67% | 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 | 802 | 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 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 40 | 26.67% |

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 239 of the 802 answers (29.80%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 40 of 150 engagements.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 60 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. C198 is the written-answer question of the indicator's survey section, so its responses are primary. The responses to every other question are secondary. Segments wide enough to hold a label carry their count. C198 asked: “Add any comments on the third-party ecosystem that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C202 asked: “Why did you alter client provided data?” C029 asked: “What are your top 3 challenges that reduce your job satisfaction?” C204 asked: “Comment”Table 5. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 56 | 56 | 49 | 45 of 56 (80.36%) | 34 of 56 (60.71%) | 11 of 56 (19.64%) | −5.9 |
| Secondary | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 of 4 | 2 of 4 | 0 of 4 | ‡ |
| All responses | 60 | 59 | 51 | 49 of 60 (81.67%) | 36 of 60 (60.00%) | 11 of 60 (18.33%) | −6.0 |

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

The primary responses numbered 56, all written in answer to C198, “Add any comments on the third-party ecosystem that the ratings in this section do not capture.” The remaining 4 responses, 6.67% of the total, were secondary and came from 3 other questions. That secondary share ranked 49th from the highest among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 18.92%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 0. Negative responses made up 80.36% of primary responses (45 of 56) and 4 of the 4 secondary responses.

Fourteen responses described data moved by hand between a provider's user interface and the agent: counterparty ratings copied from a bureau display every evening, correspondent bank files downloaded and entered each morning, threat indicators copied into a sheet, lab reports typed in from scans, verification reports saved by one person into a shared folder for the agents to collect, and a regulatory return typed into a submission portal every time. One respondent put the cost at two hours of every evening, uncounted, while the queue looked fine from the outside. Eight responses described agents driving user interfaces that broke whenever the provider moved a button, a column or a page, on statutory portals, market data terminals, network portals and an HR portal.

Some respondents described a person who had to remain in the loop: a certification portal built for a person holding a token, so that an engineer sat with every run, and month-end runs on a slow fund administration portal that two seniors watched and re-ran by hand for three months. Five responses raised licenses written for named human users. Such licenses did not cover an agent, and no one had resolved the question. The eleven positive responses described documented interfaces that worked as described, or interfaces opened during the engagement, with three responses noting a move from scraping pages to a real interface, while placing their concerns in dirty data, licensing, missing sandbox keys or fallback.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 60 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 60 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 6. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −6.0 | 95% CI −7.4 to −4.4, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 60 responses |
| Median written score | −10.0 | n = 60 responses |
| Negative responses | 49 of 60 (81.67%) | 95% CI 71.19% to 90.91% of 60 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 36 of 60 (60.00%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 11 of 60 (18.33%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −63.33 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 60 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −6.0 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 59 respondents |

Of the 60 responses, 49 (81.67%, 95% CI 71.19% to 90.91%) were negative and 36 (60.00%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 11 (18.33%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was −6.0 (95% CI −7.4 to −4.4, n = 60 responses), and the median was −10.0.

## Correspondence Between Ratings and Written Sentiment

Figure 3. Written score against the respondent's rating of the indicator (n = 58 responses with a rating)ExhibitNote: Each marker is one combination of written score and rating, and its area is proportional to the number of responses at that combination. The written score runs from −10 at the left to +10 at the right. The rating rises from the worst outcome at the bottom to the best at the top, and ratings of 3 or below are the distressed range. Of the 60 responses, 2 had no rating and are not shown.

Of the 60 responses, 58 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score rose with the rating (Spearman rho 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.76, p < 0.001, n = 58 responses). The written responses corroborated the rating. Of the 47 negative responses with a rating, 31 (65.96%) came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

## Rating Profile of Respondents Providing Written Responses

Figure 4. Distribution of ratings, respondents who wrote about the indicator and respondents who did notExhibitNote: The columns of each group sum to the whole of that group: 57 respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating, and 745 who gave a rating without writing about it.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 57, with a mean rating of 3.4. The 745 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 4.7. The difference, −1.3 (95% CI −2.0 to −0.6), excluded zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 57.89% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (33 of 57) and 27.65% of the ratings from respondents who did not (206 of 745).

The respondents who wrote came disproportionately from the distressed end of the scale. The written evidence therefore gives more weight to the respondents who rated the indicator worst.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 7a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 802 | 94.35% of 850 | 150 | 4.6 | 4.5 to 4.8 | 2.2 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 221 | 95.26% of 232 | 42 | 5.0 | 4.7 to 5.4 | 2.3 |
| ITO | 244 | 234 | 95.90% of 244 | 40 | 4.6 | 4.3 to 4.8 | 1.9 |
| BPO | 209 | 194 | 92.82% of 209 | 37 | 4.3 | 4.0 to 4.6 | 2.1 |
| KPO | 165 | 153 | 92.73% of 165 | 31 | 4.6 | 4.2 to 4.9 | 2.3 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 121 | 91.67% of 132 | 24 | 4.5 | 4.2 to 4.9 | 2.0 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 132 | 94.29% of 140 | 23 | 4.8 | 4.4 to 5.1 | 2.0 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 100 | 95.24% of 105 | 19 | 3.5 | 3.1 to 3.9 | 2.1 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 74 | 94.87% of 78 | 14 | 4.6 | 4.1 to 5.0 | 2.1 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 78 | 95.12% of 82 | 13 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.7 | 1.8 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 67 | 94.37% of 71 | 13 | 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.2 | 2.4 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 66 | 90.41% of 73 | 12 | 3.9 | 3.4 to 4.5 | 2.1 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 70 | 95.89% of 73 | 12 | 5.5 | 5.0 to 6.0 | 2.2 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 56 | 98.25% of 57 | 11 | 5.3 | 4.7 to 5.9 | 2.3 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 38 | 97.44% of 39 | 9 | 4.7 | 3.8 to 5.6 | 2.7 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 239 | 96.37% of 248 | 47 | 4.5 | 4.2 to 4.8 | 2.3 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 198 | 97.06% of 204 | 35 | 4.7 | 4.5 to 5.0 | 2.0 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 85 | 90.43% of 94 | 16 | 4.2 | 3.8 to 4.7 | 2.2 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 73 | 91.25% of 80 | 15 | 4.1 | 3.6 to 4.7 | 2.4 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 68 | 93.15% of 73 | 12 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 51 | 89.47% of 57 | 9 | 5.5 | 5.0 to 6.0 | 1.8 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 50 | 98.04% of 51 | 9 | 4.8 | 4.2 to 5.4 | 2.2 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 38 | 88.37% of 43 | 7 | 4.2 | 3.5 to 4.9 | 2.1 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 415 | 92.02% of 451 | 76 | 4.8 | 4.5 to 5.0 | 2.2 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 387 | 96.99% of 399 | 74 | 4.5 | 4.3 to 4.7 | 2.2 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 166 | 94.86% of 175 | 31 | 5.5 | 5.2 to 5.8 | 1.9 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 237 | 94.80% of 250 | 43 | 5.5 | 5.3 to 5.8 | 1.9 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 100 | 97.09% of 103 | 20 | 5.6 | 5.2 to 5.9 | 1.9 |
| Canceled | 322 | 299 | 92.86% of 322 | 56 | 3.1 | 2.9 to 3.3 | 1.8 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 619 | 92.80% of 667 | 150 | 4.5 | 4.3 to 4.7 | 2.2 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 4.9 | 4.6 to 5.3 | 2.2 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 31 | 100.00% of 31 | 31 | 5.9 | 5.1 to 6.6 | 2.0 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 296 | 93.67% of 316 | 59 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 4.9 | 2.1 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 186 | 93.94% of 198 | 37 | 4.1 | 3.8 to 4.5 | 2.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 113 | 96.58% of 117 | 23 | 4.7 | 4.3 to 5.1 | 2.2 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 83 | 95.40% of 87 | 17 | 5.1 | 4.6 to 5.6 | 2.3 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 69 | 92.00% of 75 | 14 | 5.1 | 4.5 to 5.6 | 2.3 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 55 | 96.49% of 57 | 45 | 4.5 | 3.9 to 5.1 | 2.2 |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 7b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 239 | 29.80% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 52 | 23.53% |
| ITO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 70 | 29.91% |
| BPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 69 | 35.57% |
| KPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 48 | 31.37% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 35 | 28.93% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 32 | 24.24% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 53 | 53.00% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 19 | 25.68% |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 10 | 12.82% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 10.0 | 21 | 31.34% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.8 | 9.0 | 29 | 43.94% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 12 | 17.14% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 3.8 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 14 | 25.00% |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 6.8 | 10.0 | 14 | 36.84% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 76 | 31.80% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 3.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 50 | 25.25% |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 33 | 38.82% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 35 | 47.95% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 13 | 19.12% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5 | 9.80% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 10.0 | 14 | 28.00% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 13 | 34.21% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 117 | 28.19% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 122 | 31.52% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 21 | 12.65% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 32 | 13.50% |
| Active, Production | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 12 | 12.00% |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 9.0 | 174 | 58.19% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 200 | 32.31% |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 36 | 24.00% |
| Portfolio Director | 1.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 3 | 9.68% |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 2 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 81 | 27.36% |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 2.3 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 64 | 34.41% |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 33 | 29.20% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 22 | 26.51% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 21 | 30.43% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 18 | 32.73% |

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 8a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.99 | 3, 78.4 | 0.404 | 1.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 to 0.057 |
| Institution type | 1.45 | 8, 49.1 | 0.199 | 0.798 | 0.031 | 0.000 to 0.116 |
| Process family | 0.90 | 4, 39.1 | 0.472 | 1.000 | −0.002 | 0.000 to 0.066 |
| Class of work | 0.50 | 1, 147.8 | 0.479 | 1.000 | −0.003 | 0.000 to 0.035 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 34.07 | 3, 60.0 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.378 | 0.282 to 0.468 |
| Respondent role | 8.66 | 2, 76.0 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.018 | 0.006 to 0.038 |
| Vendor type | 3.24 | 5, 234.1 | 0.008 | 0.038 | 0.015 | 0.004 to 0.034 |

Table 8b. 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 | 3.20 | 0.362 | 2.01 | 3 | 0.569 | 0.12 | None |
| Institution type | 11.35 | 0.183 | 11.71 | 8 | 0.163, simulated | 0.29 | Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | 3.86 | 0.426 | 4.19 | 4 | 0.384, simulated | 0.18 | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | 0.38 | 0.536 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.403 | 0.07 | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 60.10 | < 0.001 | 42.85 | 3 | < 0.001 | 0.53 | None |
| Respondent role | 16.35 | < 0.001 | 10.26 | 2 | 0.006 | 0.11 | Customer Management Executive, n = 2 |
| Vendor type | 18.32 | 0.003 | 3.42 | 5 | 0.636 | 0.07 | 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 34.07, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.378). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 5.6, n = 100 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.1, n = 299 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 8.66, Holm p = 0.002, omega squared 0.018). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.9, n = 31 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.5, n = 619 respondents). Ratings also differed by vendor type (Welch F 3.24, Holm p = 0.038, omega squared 0.015). Boutique or specialist providers rated highest (mean 5.1, n = 83 respondents) and BPO specialists lowest (mean 4.1, n = 186 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 5. Written sentiment by engagement status and lifecycle stage, share of each group's responsesExhibitNote: Each bar is the whole of its group's responses, divided by written score from −10 at the left to +10 at the right. Segments large enough to hold a label carry their share.Table 9. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 13 | 13 | 11 | −3.1 | 9 of 13 (69.23%) | 3 of 13 (23.08%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 13 | 12 | 10 | −3.8 | 9 of 13 (69.23%) | 7 of 13 (53.85%) |
| Active, Production | 4 | 4 | 4 | ‡ | 3 of 4 | 3 of 4 |
| Canceled | 30 | 30 | 26 | −8.2 | 28 of 30 (93.33%) | 23 of 30 (76.67%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 42 | 41 | 39 | −7.1 | 37 of 42 (88.10%) | 28 of 42 (66.67%) |
| Engagement Manager | 16 | 16 | 16 | −4.1 | 11 of 16 (68.75%) | 8 of 16 (50.00%) |
| Portfolio Director | 2 | 2 | 2 | ‡ | 1 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 51 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 9.00, df 3, p = 0.029). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −8.2, 30 responses) and responses from active engagements in Build-Out the least negative (mean −3.1, 13 responses). Responses from active engagements in Production (4) are reported as counts only.

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 42, engagement managers wrote 16 and portfolio directors wrote 2 responses.

## 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 10a. 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 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.60 | −0.77 to −0.36 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.55 | −0.74 to −0.29 | < 0.001 | 0.003 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.69 | −0.83 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.70 | −0.84 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.74 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.69 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.48 | † | 0.038 | 0.151 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.71 | † | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.49 | † | 0.089 | 0.151 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.53 | † | 0.064 | 0.151 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.75 | † | 0.005 | 0.043 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.67 | † | 0.018 | 0.094 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.61 | † | 0.047 | 0.151 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.64 | −0.78 to −0.43 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.60 | −0.78 to −0.34 | < 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.59 | † | 0.016 | 0.094 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.66 | † | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.72 | † | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| 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 | −0.61 | −0.74 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.65 | −0.76 to −0.49 | < 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 10b. 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 | 0.33 | 0.23 to 0.47 | 0.88 | 80.00% of 40 | 21.82% of 110 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.39 | 0.22 to 0.69 | 0.86 | 7 of 9 | 24.24% of 33 | 0.005 | 0.992 |
| ITO | 0.37 | 0.20 to 0.70 | 0.84 | 70.00% of 10 | 26.67% of 30 | 0.024 | 0.971 |
| BPO | 0.24 | 0.10 to 0.57 | 0.92 | 84.62% of 13 | 12.50% of 24 | < 0.001 | 0.999 |
| KPO | 0.24 | 0.09 to 0.64 | 0.93 | 7 of 8 | 21.74% of 23 | 0.002 | 0.998 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.14 | † n = 24 | 0.94 | 5 of 5 | 42.11% of 19 | 0.041 | 0.998 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.20 | † n = 23 | 0.93 | 4 of 5 | 22.22% of 18 | 0.033 | 0.993 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.52 | † n = 19 | 0.80 | 60.00% of 10 | 3 of 9 | 0.370 | 0.802 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.21 | † n = 14 | 0.93 | 4 of 4 | 10.00% of 10 | 0.005 | 0.974 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.41 | † n = 13 | 0.78 | 2 of 2 | 18.18% of 11 | 0.077 | 0.763 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.20 | † n = 13 | 0.85 | 3 of 5 | 0 of 8 | 0.035 | 0.809 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.08 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 4 of 4 | 1 of 8 | 0.010 | 0.978 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.28 | † n = 12 | 0.88 | 1 of 1 | 27.27% of 11 | 0.333 | 0.931 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.34 | † n = 11 | 0.83 | 1 of 2 | 2 of 9 | 0.491 | 0.869 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.28 | 0.13 to 0.60 | 0.90 | 83.33% of 12 | 25.71% of 35 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.33 | 0.16 to 0.69 | 0.89 | 6 of 9 | 15.38% of 26 | 0.007 | 0.986 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.42 | † n = 16 | 0.83 | 5 of 6 | 40.00% of 10 | 0.145 | 0.910 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.39 | † n = 15 | 0.88 | 6 of 7 | 2 of 8 | 0.041 | 0.954 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.19 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 2 of 2 | 0.00% of 10 | 0.015 | 0.965 |
| 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 | 0.34 | 0.21 to 0.55 | 0.87 | 83.33% of 18 | 25.86% of 58 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.29 | 0.16 to 0.51 | 0.90 | 77.27% of 22 | 17.31% of 52 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | a | | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | a | | | | | | |
| Active, Production | a | | | | | | |
| Canceled | a | | | | | | |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.63, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.52, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twelve 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 11a. 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 | 0.71 | 0.60 to 0.80 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.64 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 23 | 0.78 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.70 | † | < 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.68 | 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.86 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.76 | 0.006 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | 0.61 | † | 0.017 | < 0.050 | 0.57 | 0.026 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.58 | † | 0.077 | 0.093 | 0.44 | 0.205 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.84 | † | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.71 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.75 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.65 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.64 | † | 0.046 | 0.093 | 0.51 | 0.132 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.72 | 0.55 to 0.84 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.72 | 0.55 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.73 | 0.51 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.70 | 0.51 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.73 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| 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 11b. 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 | 5.25 | 4.18 to 6.32 | 0.51 | 1.000 | 150 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 6.06 | † n = 27 | 0.70 | 1.000 | 42 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 4.40 | † n = 25 | 0.41 | 0.983 | 40 | 0.66 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 5.68 | † n = 23 | 0.61 | 1.000 | 37 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 5.97 | † n = 19 | 0.49 | 0.986 | 31 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 6.94 | † n = 11 | 0.75 | 0.998 | 24 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 4.67 | † n = 15 | 0.37 | 0.913 | 23 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 4.28 | † n = 10 | 0.34 | 0.827 | 19 | 0.59 | 0.008 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 5.81 | † n = 10 | 0.70 | 0.992 | 13 | 0.79 | 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 | 5.52 | † n = 28 | 0.57 | 1.000 | 47 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 4.56 | † n = 25 | 0.42 | 0.985 | 35 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 5.17 | † n = 10 | 0.41 | 0.882 | 12 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| 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 | 5.97 | 4.24 to 7.70 | 0.52 | 1.000 | 76 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 4.66 | 3.32 to 5.99 | 0.52 | 1.000 | 74 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 4.79 | 3.10 to 6.48 | 0.54 | 1.000 | 31 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 5.50 | 3.73 to 7.27 | 0.49 | 1.000 | 43 | 0.70 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 5.16 | † | 0.53 | 0.994 | 20 | 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| 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 = 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen 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 12a. 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 | 0.88 | 0.84 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.88 | 0.78 to 0.93 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.85 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.82 | 0.69 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.82 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.92 | 0.85 to 0.96 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.89 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.89 | 0.78 to 0.95 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.91 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.91 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.93 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.80 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.83 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.95 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.94 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.89 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.91 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.91 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.94 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.96 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | 0.002 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.89 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.73 | 0.011 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.92 | 0.86 to 0.96 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.91 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.85 | 0.72 to 0.92 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.84 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.94 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.92 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.88 | < 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 | 0.86 | 0.79 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.90 | 0.85 to 0.94 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.89 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.86 | 0.72 to 0.93 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.86 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.82 | 0.69 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.89 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.65 | 0.47 to 0.78 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.59 | < 0.001 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 12b. 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 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.63 to 0.75 | 0.77 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.56 to 0.80 | 0.77 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.66 | 0.51 to 0.81 | 0.68 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.57 to 0.76 | 0.85 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | 0.89 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.60 to 0.88 | 0.79 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.84 | † n = 24 | 0.83 | 1.000 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.68 | † n = 23 | 0.65 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.52 | † n = 19 | 0.69 | 1.000 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.83 | † n = 14 | 0.90 | 1.000 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.83 | † n = 13 | 0.80 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.68 | † n = 13 | 0.82 | 1.000 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.68 | † n = 12 | 0.88 | 1.000 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.76 | † n = 12 | 0.76 | 0.999 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.66 | † n = 11 | 0.80 | 0.999 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.73 | 0.64 to 0.83 | 0.85 | 1.000 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.49 to 0.76 | 0.72 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.71 | † n = 16 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.94 | 0.00 | 0.60 | † n = 15 | 0.88 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.65 | † n = 12 | 0.85 | 1.000 | 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 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.60 to 0.78 | 0.75 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.62 to 0.77 | 0.82 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.76 | 0.74 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.82 | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0.48 to 0.75 | 0.67 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.75 | † n = 20 | 0.80 | 1.000 | No |
| Canceled | 0.66 | −0.01 | 0.31 | 0.21 to 0.41 | 0.43 | 1.000 | 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 = 0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91, 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 13a. 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 | 754 | −0.66 | −0.70 to −0.62 | −0.72 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 207 | −0.66 | −0.73 to −0.58 | −0.77 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 223 | −0.56 | −0.65 to −0.47 | −0.69 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 181 | −0.72 | −0.79 to −0.65 | −0.82 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 143 | −0.72 | −0.79 to −0.63 | −0.80 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 112 | −0.68 | −0.77 to −0.57 | −0.81 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 124 | −0.65 | −0.74 to −0.53 | −0.79 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 93 | −0.52 | −0.65 to −0.35 | −0.73 to −0.22 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 68 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.66 | −0.88 to −0.58 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 72 | −0.49 | −0.65 to −0.29 | −0.72 to −0.17 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 65 | −0.71 | −0.81 to −0.56 | −0.86 to −0.46 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 63 | −0.74 | −0.83 to −0.60 | −0.84 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 66 | −0.62 | −0.75 to −0.45 | −0.82 to −0.34 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 54 | −0.72 | −0.83 to −0.56 | −0.83 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 37 | −0.75 | −0.86 to −0.56 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 218 | −0.70 | −0.76 to −0.62 | −0.78 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 188 | −0.61 | −0.69 to −0.51 | −0.73 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 82 | −0.66 | −0.76 to −0.51 | −0.85 to −0.24 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 68 | −0.79 | −0.86 to −0.67 | −0.90 to −0.54 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 66 | −0.57 | −0.71 to −0.38 | −0.78 to −0.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 47 | −0.45 | −0.66 to −0.19 | § n = 9 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 48 | −0.73 | −0.84 to −0.56 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 37 | −0.65 | −0.80 to −0.41 | § n = 7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 391 | −0.64 | −0.69 to −0.58 | −0.72 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 363 | −0.69 | −0.74 to −0.64 | −0.77 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 158 | −0.60 | −0.69 to −0.49 | −0.72 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 225 | −0.58 | −0.66 to −0.48 | −0.69 to −0.44 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 92 | −0.56 | −0.68 to −0.40 | −0.73 to −0.35 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 279 | −0.12 | −0.23 to 0.00 | −0.24 to 0.00 | 0.045 | 0.045 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 572 | −0.67 | −0.71 to −0.62 | −0.73 to −0.59 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.59 | −0.75 to −0.61 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | −0.45 | −0.69 to −0.11 | −0.70 to −0.14 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Customer Management Executive | 1 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 283 | −0.62 | −0.69 to −0.54 | −0.71 to −0.50 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 171 | −0.70 | −0.77 to −0.61 | −0.79 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 106 | −0.73 | −0.81 to −0.62 | −0.82 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 77 | −0.69 | −0.79 to −0.55 | −0.83 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 66 | −0.75 | −0.84 to −0.62 | −0.87 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 51 | −0.46 | −0.65 to −0.21 | −0.69 to −0.17 | < 0.001 | 0.003 |

Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 13b. 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 | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 93.45% of 229 | 36.19% of 525 | 150 | −0.74 | −0.80 to −0.66 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 87.76% of 49 | 31.65% of 158 | 42 | −0.73 | −0.85 to −0.55 | 1.000 |
| ITO | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 91.43% of 70 | 44.44% of 153 | 40 | −0.65 | −0.80 to −0.42 | 0.998 |
| BPO | −0.74 | < 0.001 | 96.88% of 64 | 30.77% of 117 | 37 | −0.81 | −0.90 to −0.66 | 1.000 |
| KPO | −0.72 | < 0.001 | 97.83% of 46 | 37.11% of 97 | 31 | −0.79 | −0.89 to −0.60 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.67 | < 0.001 | 97.06% of 34 | 53.85% of 78 | 24 | −0.79 | † | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 90.32% of 31 | 31.18% of 93 | 23 | −0.74 | † | 0.998 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.51 | < 0.001 | 85.71% of 49 | 43.18% of 44 | 19 | −0.49 | † | 0.819 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.77 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 19 | 34.69% of 49 | 14 | −0.83 | † | 0.998 |
| Commercial and business banking | −0.47 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 8 | 39.06% of 64 | 13 | −0.62 | † | 0.909 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.70 | < 0.001 | 95.24% of 21 | 29.55% of 44 | 13 | −0.83 | † | 0.997 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.72 | < 0.001 | 96.43% of 28 | 22.86% of 35 | 12 | −0.87 | † | 0.999 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 90.91% of 11 | 30.91% of 55 | 12 | −0.70 | † | 0.954 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 14 | 27.50% of 40 | 11 | −0.84 | † | 0.995 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.78 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 14 | 39.13% of 23 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.72 | < 0.001 | 94.29% of 70 | 39.19% of 148 | 47 | −0.76 | −0.86 to −0.60 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 88.00% of 50 | 33.33% of 138 | 35 | −0.69 | −0.83 to −0.46 | 0.999 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.57 | < 0.001 | 90.63% of 32 | 44.00% of 50 | 16 | −0.71 | † | 0.980 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | −0.75 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 33 | 34.29% of 35 | 15 | −0.83 | † | 0.999 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 84.62% of 13 | 15.09% of 53 | 12 | −0.68 | † | 0.941 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.45 | 0.001 | ‡ n = 5 | 35.71% of 42 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 13 | 48.57% of 35 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.61 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 13 | 50.00% of 24 | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.63 | < 0.001 | 95.58% of 113 | 37.77% of 278 | 76 | −0.72 | −0.81 to −0.59 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.69 | < 0.001 | 91.38% of 116 | 34.41% of 247 | 74 | −0.77 | −0.85 to −0.66 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.59 | < 0.001 | 65.00% of 20 | 19.57% of 138 | 31 | −0.66 | −0.82 to −0.39 | 0.994 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 90.63% of 32 | 18.13% of 193 | 43 | −0.62 | −0.77 to −0.39 | 0.995 |
| Active, Production | −0.57 | < 0.001 | 58.33% of 12 | 17.50% of 80 | 20 | −0.59 | † | 0.933 |
| Canceled | −0.13 | 0.027 | 100.00% of 165 | 100.00% of 114 | 56 | 0.02 | −0.24 to 0.28 | 0.017 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 93.68% of 190 | 36.13% of 382 | 149 | −0.74 | −0.80 to −0.65 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.68 | < 0.001 | 94.44% of 36 | 35.96% of 114 | 150 | −0.68 | −0.76 to −0.59 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | −0.44 | 0.014 | ‡ n = 3 | 39.29% of 28 | 31 | −0.45 | −0.69 to −0.11 | 0.820 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 90.12% of 81 | 38.12% of 202 | 59 | −0.69 | −0.80 to −0.53 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | −0.70 | < 0.001 | 98.31% of 59 | 37.50% of 112 | 37 | −0.77 | −0.87 to −0.59 | 1.000 |
| Consulting firm | −0.73 | < 0.001 | 96.88% of 32 | 27.03% of 74 | 23 | −0.77 | † | 0.999 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.69 | < 0.001 | 90.48% of 21 | 44.64% of 56 | 17 | −0.78 | † | 0.997 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.74 | < 0.001 | 94.74% of 19 | 25.53% of 47 | 14 | −0.84 | † | 0.999 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 88.24% of 17 | 41.18% of 34 | 42 | −0.42 | −0.64 to −0.13 | 0.800 |

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 = −0.66, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.62, Holm p < 0.001, n = 754 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven of the 37 segment levels tested.

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 14. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | n | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate, engagements | 24 of 42 (57.14%) | 32 of 108 (29.63%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.003 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 61.00%, n = 18 | 64.83%, n = 76 | Welch t | −1.32 | 94 | 0.199 |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.37 | 51 | 0.007 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.54 | 58 | < 0.001 |

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 108 other engagements, 99 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 42 engagements with a negative response, 24 (57.14%) were canceled, against 32 of the 108 other engagements (29.63%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.003). Customer satisfaction among active engagements did not differ between the two groups (mean 61.00% on 18 engagements against 64.83% on 76, Welch t −1.32, p = 0.199).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 51 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.37, p = 0.007). Across 58 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.54, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, three reached significance at 0.05.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 15. 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 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.71 | 0.60 to 0.80 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Leave-one-out | Engagement | 150 | 0.88 | 0.84 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 754 | −0.66 | −0.72 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |

Table 16. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.12 | −5.84 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.26 | −7.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.11 | −3.07 | 0.002 | 0.004 | Differed |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.14 | −5.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.708 | 0.708 | Did not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.14 | 5.93 | < 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 cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and intent to leave did not differ (Holm p = 0.708).

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 17. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 5.3 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.65 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 3.83 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 802 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 209 | 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 0.65). Clustering reduced the 802 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 209 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 18. 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 | −0.63 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.71 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.88 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 754, effective 196 | −0.66 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.99 | 0.20 | 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 19. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.63 | −0.64 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.71 | 0.71 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.87 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.66 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.66 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.78 to 0.90 | −0.03 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.58 | −0.63 to −0.51 | 0.09 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.63 | −0.64 | −0.72 to −0.53 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.61 to 0.81 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.84 to 0.92 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.66 | −0.70 to −0.62 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.63 | −0.62 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.71 | 0.71 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.88 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.63 | −0.63 | −0.71 to −0.53 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.62 to 0.79 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.84 to 0.91 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.66 | −0.72 to −0.60 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.63 | −0.63 | −0.74 to −0.48 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.54 to 0.82 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.84 to 0.93 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.66 | −0.66 | −0.72 to −0.61 | 0.00 | 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 0.88 to 0.88.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 20. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | The indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.03 | 0.53 | 0.596 | 1.000 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.508 | 1.000 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 2.03 | 0.042 | 0.169 |
| Intent to leave | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.539 | 1.000 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.02 | | | |
| 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.

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 2 Indicators

Figure 6. Share of negative written responses, Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses (n = 71 indicators)ExhibitNote: Each column is one indicator, ordered from the highest share of negative responses. The indicator is the amber column. The dashed line marks the median share, 80.82%.

Among the 71 Part 2 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 81.67%, ranked 33rd from the highest, against a median of 80.82%. Its mean written score, −6.0, ranked 14th from the most negative, against a median of −4.7.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 7. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 60 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 60 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C181: “Rate the quality of advance notice third-party providers give before changes that can affect the agents on this engagement.” C178: “Rate how well the agents on this engagement are protected from breaking silently when a third party changes something without warning.” C187: “Rate the stability of the third-party APIs and data structures the agents depend on, from one provider release to the next.” C195: “Rate how well third-party licenses on this engagement cover work done by agents rather than named human users.” C188: “Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup.” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: stressed 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C181, “Rate the quality of advance notice third-party providers give before changes that can affect the agents on this engagement.”, in 17 of the 60 responses (28.33%). C178, “Rate how well the agents on this engagement are protected from breaking silently when a third party changes something without warning.” (15 responses), C187, “Rate the stability of the third-party APIs and data structures the agents depend on, from one provider release to the next.” (11 responses), C195, “Rate how well third-party licenses on this engagement cover work done by agents rather than named human users.” (8 responses) and C188, “Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup.” (6 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Third-party work done by hand”, in 23 responses (38.33%). The second was “Detection only by failure”, in 12 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Nearly three in ten of all ratings of the availability of true machine interfaces fell in the distressed range (239 of 802 answers, 29.80%). 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 = 299 respondents).

The written evidence shows that where a provider offered only a user interface built for people, the agent either inherited its fragility or needed a person to feed it. In both cases the automation the financial institution paid for depended on manual work that its own measures did not show. Written sentiment was associated with cancellation in both engagement-level tests and with intent to leave.

## 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 2 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (60 responses on 51 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

## Definitions

Table 21. 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 third-party ecosystem. |
| 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. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 22. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C186, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C186, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 3,102 |
| 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 | C186.qa.json, sha256 5b61eabe622cda5e. C186.wfacts.json, sha256 a01454099aea1407. Hand-written text handcraft/C186.json, sha256 874ca44cc7c3355a |


## Links to related study evidence

- [Part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)
- [Third-party ecosystem](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/third-party-ecosystem/)
- [Customer satisfaction](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-customer-satisfaction/)
- [Engagement indicator mean](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-engagement-indicator-mean/)
- [Intent to leave](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [part 1](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-1-engagement-outcomes/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C181](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c181/)
- [C178](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c178/)
- [C187](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c187/)
- [C195](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c195/)
- [C188](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c188/)