Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c203/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

My greater team regularly alters client provided data

Study Data · Part 5 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# My greater team regularly alters client provided data

Indicator C203 · 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 5 IndicatorsCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C203 |
| Question as asked | My greater team regularly alters client provided data. |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.6 Alterations > Client Data |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Directional, DIR |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, with no good or bad end |
| Answering base | 773 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 29, I prefer to not answer 19, blank 29 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 84 responses from 78 respondents on 55 engagements (84 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 | 0.70 | 0.60 to 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | −0.65 | −0.76 to −0.52 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | 150 engagements | −0.84 | −0.88 to −0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 722 respondents | 0.66 | 0.61 to 0.71 | < 0.001 |

The statement is rated from 1 to 10 with no good or bad end. The mean rating was 5.4 and the median 5.0 (n = 773 respondents). The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with more cancellation (r = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), lower customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.52, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.84, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.79, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and higher intent to leave (r = 0.66, cluster bootstrap 95% CI 0.61 to 0.71, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 722 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 52.01, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.484) and respondent role (Welch F 134.69, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.121).

Of the 84 written responses, 83 were negative. The respondents who answered C202 described data that the team cleaned every cycle and that arrived in error again the next, and those who answered C204 described the alteration of the financial institution's data as routine, known to the team lead, seldom logged and seldom reported to the financial institution. The single positive response described a data exception step agreed with the financial institution's platform owner before any correction was applied.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 773) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2 | 0.26% | 0.26% | 2 | 1.33% | Not applicable |
| 2 | 57 | 7.37% | 7.63% | 34 | 22.67% | Not applicable |
| 3 | 115 | 14.88% | 22.51% | 56 | 37.33% | Not applicable |
| 4 | 100 | 12.94% | 35.45% | 75 | 50.00% | Not applicable |
| 5 | 146 | 18.89% | 54.33% | 84 | 56.00% | Not applicable |
| 6 | 108 | 13.97% | 68.31% | 74 | 49.33% | Not applicable |
| 7 | 90 | 11.64% | 79.95% | 59 | 39.33% | Not applicable |
| 8 | 109 | 14.10% | 94.05% | 63 | 42.00% | Not applicable |
| 9 | 43 | 5.56% | 99.61% | 34 | 22.67% | Not applicable |
| 10 | 3 | 0.39% | 100.00% | 3 | 2.00% | Not applicable |
| I do not know | 29 | Not in base | Not in base | 29 | 19.33% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 19 | Not in base | Not in base | 19 | 12.67% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 773 | 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, as recorded | 150 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 5.4 | 8.9 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

The scale has no good or bad end, so no distressed range applies.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 84 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. C204 and C202 and C210 and C208 are the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section, so their responses are primary. The responses to every other question are secondary. Segments wide enough to hold a label carry their count. C204 asked: “Comment” C202 asked: “Why did you alter client provided data?” C210 asked: “Comment” C208 asked: “Why did you alter client processes?”Table 5. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 84 | 78 | 55 | 83 of 84 (98.81%) | 82 of 84 (97.62%) | 1 of 84 (1.19%) | −9.8 |
| Secondary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | None |
| All responses | 84 | 78 | 55 | 83 of 84 (98.81%) | 82 of 84 (97.62%) | 1 of 84 (1.19%) | −9.8 |

The primary responses numbered 84, written in answer to C204, C202, C210 and C208, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. No response from any other question addressed the indicator, so every response was primary.

In 19 of the 20 responses to C202, respondents said the data arrived dirty or in error again after the team had cleaned it, and most added that they fixed it themselves before it was loaded. Access appeared in 15 responses across all questions: credentials that expired, requests that sat for weeks, or a platform closed to the team, so the data could not be corrected at its source.

The 61 responses to C204 described how often and how openly the team altered the data. Words of frequency, such as every cycle, most weeks or seven out of ten, appeared in 81 responses across all questions. The team lead or manager appeared as someone who knew or was told in 22 responses to C204. In 27 responses, respondents said that nothing changed upstream, that nobody signed off the workaround or that a raised problem went nowhere. Respondents said the fixes were not logged, reported or flagged in 15 responses, and that the financial institution was not told, or that no one outside the team knew, in 9. Three responses said the financial institution had been told in writing or already knew that the team filled gaps in its data.

The themes most often marked were “Occurs every cycle or most days” (74 responses), “Told vendor-side management” (24) and “Raised it, nothing came back” (13).

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 84 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 84 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 6. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −9.8 | 95% CI −10.0 to −9.3, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 84 responses |
| Median written score | −10.0 | n = 84 responses |
| Negative responses | 83 of 84 (98.81%) | 95% CI 96.15% to 100.00% of 84 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 82 of 84 (97.62%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 1 of 84 (1.19%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −97.62 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 84 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −9.7 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 78 respondents |

Of the 84 responses, 83 (98.81%, 95% CI 96.15% to 100.00%) were negative and 82 (97.62%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 1 (1.19%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was −9.8 (95% CI −10.0 to −9.3, n = 84 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 = 83 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 of agreement rises from the lowest at the bottom to the highest at the top, with no good or bad end. Of the 84 responses, 1 had no rating and are not shown.

Of the 84 responses, 83 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score fell with the rating (Spearman rho −0.25, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.15, p = 0.023, n = 83 responses). Respondents who agreed more strongly wrote more negatively.

## 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: 77 respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating, and 696 who gave a rating without writing about it.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 77, with a mean rating of 6.9. The 696 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 5.2. The difference, 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.1), excluded zero.

## 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 | 773 | 90.94% of 850 | 150 | 5.4 | 5.2 to 5.5 | 2.0 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 211 | 90.95% of 232 | 42 | 5.0 | 4.7 to 5.3 | 2.1 |
| ITO | 244 | 213 | 87.30% of 244 | 40 | 5.3 | 5.1 to 5.6 | 1.9 |
| BPO | 209 | 196 | 93.78% of 209 | 37 | 5.6 | 5.3 to 5.9 | 2.0 |
| KPO | 165 | 153 | 92.73% of 165 | 31 | 5.7 | 5.3 to 6.0 | 2.2 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 121 | 91.67% of 132 | 24 | 5.9 | 5.6 to 6.3 | 1.8 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 129 | 92.14% of 140 | 23 | 5.1 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 2.0 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 92 | 87.62% of 105 | 19 | 5.7 | 5.3 to 6.2 | 2.2 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 70 | 89.74% of 78 | 14 | 5.0 | 4.5 to 5.5 | 2.0 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 72 | 87.80% of 82 | 13 | 5.3 | 4.9 to 5.8 | 1.8 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 62 | 87.32% of 71 | 13 | 5.2 | 4.6 to 5.7 | 2.3 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 69 | 94.52% of 73 | 12 | 5.8 | 5.3 to 6.3 | 2.1 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 66 | 90.41% of 73 | 12 | 4.9 | 4.4 to 5.3 | 1.9 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 53 | 92.98% of 57 | 11 | 5.0 | 4.5 to 5.6 | 2.0 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 39 | 100.00% of 39 | 9 | 5.3 | 4.5 to 6.0 | 2.2 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 230 | 92.74% of 248 | 47 | 5.5 | 5.2 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 185 | 90.69% of 204 | 35 | 5.2 | 4.9 to 5.4 | 2.0 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 84 | 89.36% of 94 | 16 | 5.5 | 5.0 to 5.9 | 2.1 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 71 | 88.75% of 80 | 15 | 5.8 | 5.4 to 6.3 | 1.9 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 66 | 90.41% of 73 | 12 | 4.7 | 4.3 to 5.2 | 1.9 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 54 | 94.74% of 57 | 9 | 5.1 | 4.6 to 5.7 | 2.0 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 46 | 90.20% of 51 | 9 | 5.5 | 4.9 to 6.2 | 2.2 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 37 | 86.05% of 43 | 7 | 6.1 | 5.5 to 6.7 | 1.8 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 409 | 90.69% of 451 | 76 | 5.4 | 5.2 to 5.6 | 2.0 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 364 | 91.23% of 399 | 74 | 5.4 | 5.1 to 5.6 | 2.1 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 161 | 92.00% of 175 | 31 | 4.7 | 4.4 to 4.9 | 1.5 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 232 | 92.80% of 250 | 43 | 4.5 | 4.2 to 4.7 | 1.8 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 93 | 90.29% of 103 | 20 | 4.2 | 3.9 to 4.6 | 1.7 |
| Canceled | 322 | 287 | 89.13% of 322 | 56 | 6.9 | 6.7 to 7.1 | 1.7 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 622 | 93.25% of 667 | 150 | 5.7 | 5.5 to 5.9 | 2.0 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 131 | 87.33% of 150 | 131 | 4.3 | 4.0 to 4.5 | 1.5 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 20 | 64.52% of 31 | 20 | 2.5 | † | 0.9 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | 0 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 279 | 88.29% of 316 | 59 | 5.1 | 4.9 to 5.3 | 1.9 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 182 | 91.92% of 198 | 37 | 5.8 | 5.5 to 6.1 | 2.1 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 108 | 92.31% of 117 | 23 | 5.4 | 5.0 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 77 | 88.51% of 87 | 16 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.7 | 2.0 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 71 | 94.67% of 75 | 14 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 56 | 98.25% of 57 | 47 | 5.7 | 5.2 to 6.2 | 1.9 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ 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 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| ITO | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| KPO | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Commercial and business banking | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Retail and consumer banking | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 3.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Private equity and private capital | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.5 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Technology engineering and operations | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Client servicing and communications | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 3.3 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Active, Production | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Canceled | 2.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Engagement Manager | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Portfolio Director | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 5.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 0 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| BPO specialist | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 2.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | Not applicable | Not applicable |

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 | 0.90 | 3, 78.6 | 0.445 | 1.000 | −0.002 | 0.000 to 0.051 |
| Institution type | 0.82 | 8, 49.1 | 0.588 | 1.000 | −0.012 | 0.000 to 0.055 |
| Process family | 1.05 | 4, 39.9 | 0.394 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 to 0.069 |
| Class of work | 0.00 | 1, 147.2 | 0.973 | 1.000 | −0.007 | 0.000 to 0.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 52.01 | 3, 60.6 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.484 | 0.394 to 0.563 |
| Respondent role | 134.69 | 2, 57.3 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.121 | 0.088 to 0.158 |
| Vendor type | 2.74 | 5, 234.4 | 0.020 | 0.100 | 0.012 | 0.002 to 0.030 |

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 | 2.47 | 0.481 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Institution type | 6.63 | 0.577 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Private equity and private capital, n = 9 |
| Process family | 3.98 | 0.409 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7 |
| Class of work | 0.02 | 0.894 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 75.82 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |
| Respondent role | 96.06 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Customer Management Executive, n = 0 |
| Vendor type | 13.11 | 0.022 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | None |

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 52.01, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.484). Canceled engagements rated highest (mean 6.9, n = 287 respondents) and active engagements in Production lowest (mean 4.2, n = 93 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 134.69, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.121). Individual contributors rated highest (mean 5.7, n = 622 respondents) and portfolio directors lowest (mean 2.5, n = 20 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type 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 | 11 | 9 | 9 | −9.5 | 11 of 11 (100.00%) | 10 of 11 (90.91%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 17 | 17 | 13 | −9.1 | 16 of 17 (94.12%) | 16 of 17 (94.12%) |
| Active, Production | 8 | 7 | 6 | ‡ | 8 of 8 | 8 of 8 |
| Canceled | 48 | 45 | 27 | −10.0 | 48 of 48 (100.00%) | 48 of 48 (100.00%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 73 | 67 | 49 | −9.9 | 73 of 73 (100.00%) | 72 of 73 (98.63%) |
| Engagement Manager | 10 | 10 | 10 | −10.0 | 10 of 10 (100.00%) | 10 of 10 (100.00%) |
| Portfolio Director | 1 | 1 | 1 | ‡ | 0 of 1 | 0 of 1 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |

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

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 55 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 3.20, df 3, p = 0.362). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −10.0, 48 responses) and responses from active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over the least negative (mean −9.1, 17 responses). Responses from active engagements in Production (8) 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 73 responses, engagement managers 10 and portfolio directors 1.

## 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 | 0.70 | 0.60 to 0.77 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | 0.74 | 0.56 to 0.85 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | 0.63 | 0.40 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | 0.76 | 0.58 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | 0.67 | 0.41 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | 0.77 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | 0.70 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | 0.56 | † | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | 0.70 | † | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | 0.51 | † | 0.076 | 0.146 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | 0.80 | † | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | 0.81 | † | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | 0.91 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | 0.80 | † | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | 0.72 | 0.55 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | 0.78 | 0.60 to 0.88 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | 0.62 | † | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | 0.48 | † | 0.073 | 0.146 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | 0.80 | † | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.63 | 0.47 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | 0.77 | 0.66 to 0.85 | < 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 | 5.23 | 3.13 to 8.72 | 0.92 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 7.82 | 2.27 to 26.96 | 0.95 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| ITO | 3.77 | 1.67 to 8.52 | 0.87 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.996 |
| BPO | 6.66 | 2.17 to 20.46 | 0.93 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| KPO | 5.31 | 1.58 to 17.86 | 0.92 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.996 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 14.46 | † n = 24 | 0.95 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.999 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 6.30 | † n = 23 | 0.94 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.994 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 2.44 | † n = 19 | 0.80 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.907 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 20.38 | † n = 14 | 0.93 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.968 |
| Commercial and business banking | 3.17 | † n = 13 | 0.78 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.787 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 5.79 | † n = 13 | 1.00 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.994 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 7.24 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.994 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 6.25 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 4.50 | † n = 11 | 1.00 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.987 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 4.29 | 2.01 to 9.15 | 0.92 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 7,831.20 | a | 0.99 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 3.77 | † n = 16 | 0.83 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.931 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.99 | † n = 15 | 0.76 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.765 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 5.43 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 0.992 |
| 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 | 3.73 | 2.08 to 6.68 | 0.88 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 10.04 | 3.30 to 30.51 | 0.96 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | 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 more cancellation (r = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in eighteen 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 | −0.65 | −0.76 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.63 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | −0.74 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.72 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 25 | −0.56 | † | 0.003 | 0.027 | −0.61 | 0.001 |
| BPO | 23 | −0.68 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | −0.62 | 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | −0.66 | † | 0.002 | 0.021 | −0.59 | 0.008 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | −0.82 | † | 0.002 | 0.021 | −0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | −0.58 | † | 0.025 | 0.054 | −0.48 | 0.068 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | −0.37 | † | 0.288 | 0.288 | −0.47 | 0.173 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | −0.77 | † | 0.010 | 0.039 | −0.73 | 0.017 |
| 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 | −0.65 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | −0.58 | 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | −0.56 | † | 0.004 | 0.027 | −0.63 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | −0.72 | † | 0.018 | 0.054 | −0.61 | 0.061 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | −0.73 | −0.84 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.69 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | −0.54 | −0.72 to −0.31 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.53 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.50 | −0.73 to −0.18 | 0.004 | 0.027 | −0.53 | 0.002 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | −0.73 | −0.85 to −0.55 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.71 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | −0.59 | † | 0.006 | 0.029 | −0.59 | 0.006 |
| 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 | −6.09 | −7.55 to −4.63 | 0.43 | 1.000 | 150 | −0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −7.48 | † n = 27 | 0.55 | 0.999 | 42 | −0.85 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | −4.99 | † n = 25 | 0.32 | 0.938 | 40 | −0.70 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | −6.84 | † n = 23 | 0.47 | 0.991 | 37 | −0.84 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | −5.56 | † n = 19 | 0.43 | 0.973 | 31 | −0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −7.02 | † n = 11 | 0.67 | 0.991 | 24 | −0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −4.24 | † n = 15 | 0.33 | 0.885 | 23 | −0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −4.57 | † n = 10 | 0.14 | 0.586 | 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) | −8.22 | † n = 10 | 0.59 | 0.968 | 13 | −0.92 | < 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 | −6.37 | † n = 28 | 0.42 | 0.990 | 47 | −0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −5.48 | † n = 25 | 0.31 | 0.932 | 35 | −0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −8.55 | † n = 10 | 0.52 | 0.946 | 12 | −0.91 | < 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 | −6.91 | −8.89 to −4.93 | 0.53 | 1.000 | 76 | −0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | −4.95 | −7.22 to −2.67 | 0.29 | 0.977 | 74 | −0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −5.51 | −9.10 to −1.93 | 0.25 | 0.903 | 31 | −0.50 | 0.004 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −6.90 | −8.93 to −4.87 | 0.53 | 1.000 | 43 | −0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | −4.87 | † | 0.35 | 0.938 | 20 | −0.59 | 0.006 |
| 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 lower customer satisfaction (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.52, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in thirteen 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 does not enter the mean.

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 | −0.84 | −0.88 to −0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.85 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | −0.87 | −0.93 to −0.77 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.87 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | −0.77 | −0.87 to −0.60 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.76 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | −0.84 | −0.91 to −0.70 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.83 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | −0.89 | −0.95 to −0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.89 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | −0.85 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | −0.91 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.91 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | −0.79 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.83 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | −0.93 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.90 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | −0.92 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | −0.83 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | −0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | −0.70 | † | 0.012 | 0.012 | −0.79 | 0.002 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | −0.81 | † | 0.001 | 0.003 | −0.71 | 0.010 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | −0.96 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.89 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | −0.81 | −0.89 to −0.68 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | −0.82 | −0.90 to −0.66 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.84 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | −0.90 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.88 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | −0.79 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | −0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | −0.86 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | −0.70 | 0.011 |
| 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 | −0.92 to −0.81 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | −0.81 | −0.88 to −0.72 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.82 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | −0.59 | −0.78 to −0.30 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | −0.55 | 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | −0.83 | −0.90 to −0.70 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | −0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | −0.70 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 | −0.64 | 0.002 |
| Canceled | 56 | −0.58 | −0.73 to −0.38 | < 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 | Not a component | | −0.77 | −0.84 to −0.69 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Not a component | | −0.84 | −0.99 to −0.69 | 0.75 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | Not a component | | −0.65 | −0.82 to −0.47 | 0.59 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | Not a component | | −0.71 | −0.87 to −0.55 | 0.70 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | Not a component | | −0.84 | −1.00 to −0.68 | 0.80 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Not a component | | −0.94 | † n = 24 | 0.72 | 1.000 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | Not a component | | −0.85 | † n = 23 | 0.83 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Not a component | | −0.50 | † n = 19 | 0.62 | 0.999 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Not a component | | −0.88 | † n = 14 | 0.86 | 1.000 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | Not a component | | −0.92 | † n = 13 | 0.84 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Not a component | | −0.68 | † n = 13 | 0.68 | 0.997 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Not a component | | −0.56 | † n = 12 | 0.49 | 0.951 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | Not a component | | −0.83 | † n = 12 | 0.66 | 0.993 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Not a component | | −0.90 | † n = 11 | 0.93 | 1.000 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Not a component | | −0.75 | −0.91 to −0.59 | 0.66 | 1.000 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | Not a component | | −0.70 | −0.87 to −0.52 | 0.66 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | Not a component | | −0.95 | † n = 16 | 0.82 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Not a component | | −0.65 | † n = 15 | 0.63 | 0.996 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Not a component | | −0.77 | † n = 12 | 0.74 | 0.999 | 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 | Not a component | | −0.83 | −0.93 to −0.72 | 0.77 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | Not a component | | −0.71 | −0.83 to −0.59 | 0.66 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not a component | | −0.71 | −1.08 to −0.34 | 0.35 | 0.973 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not a component | | −0.74 | −0.90 to −0.58 | 0.68 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | Not a component | | −0.68 | † n = 20 | 0.49 | 0.989 | No |
| Canceled | Not a component | | −0.35 | −0.49 to −0.22 | 0.34 | 0.995 | No |

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

Higher ratings came with a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.84, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.79, 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 | 722 | 0.66 | 0.62 to 0.70 | 0.61 to 0.71 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 194 | 0.71 | 0.63 to 0.77 | 0.61 to 0.78 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 203 | 0.58 | 0.48 to 0.66 | 0.45 to 0.67 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 183 | 0.70 | 0.62 to 0.77 | 0.60 to 0.78 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 142 | 0.66 | 0.55 to 0.74 | 0.52 to 0.77 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 111 | 0.65 | 0.53 to 0.75 | 0.43 to 0.78 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 121 | 0.64 | 0.53 to 0.74 | 0.48 to 0.77 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 86 | 0.54 | 0.37 to 0.68 | 0.29 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 63 | 0.75 | 0.62 to 0.84 | 0.60 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Commercial and business banking | 66 | 0.60 | 0.42 to 0.74 | 0.39 to 0.76 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 60 | 0.74 | 0.59 to 0.83 | 0.55 to 0.85 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 66 | 0.58 | 0.40 to 0.72 | 0.40 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 60 | 0.74 | 0.60 to 0.84 | 0.51 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 51 | 0.79 | 0.65 to 0.87 | 0.66 to 0.85 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 38 | 0.65 | 0.42 to 0.80 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 208 | 0.67 | 0.58 to 0.74 | 0.58 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 175 | 0.64 | 0.54 to 0.72 | 0.54 to 0.72 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 79 | 0.58 | 0.41 to 0.71 | 0.20 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 67 | 0.59 | 0.41 to 0.73 | 0.20 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 63 | 0.72 | 0.58 to 0.82 | 0.48 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 50 | 0.64 | 0.44 to 0.78 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 44 | 0.82 | 0.69 to 0.90 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 36 | 0.70 | 0.48 to 0.84 | § n = 7 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 383 | 0.65 | 0.59 to 0.71 | 0.57 to 0.72 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 339 | 0.67 | 0.61 to 0.73 | 0.60 to 0.74 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 152 | 0.58 | 0.46 to 0.68 | 0.46 to 0.69 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 219 | 0.59 | 0.50 to 0.67 | 0.46 to 0.70 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 85 | 0.43 | 0.24 to 0.59 | 0.20 to 0.62 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 266 | 0.03 | −0.09 to 0.15 | −0.08 to 0.16 | 0.580 | 0.580 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 571 | 0.70 | 0.65 to 0.74 | 0.64 to 0.74 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 131 | 0.63 | 0.51 to 0.72 | 0.53 to 0.71 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 20 | 0.50 | † | † | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 265 | 0.62 | 0.54 to 0.69 | 0.53 to 0.71 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 167 | 0.70 | 0.62 to 0.77 | 0.59 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 101 | 0.60 | 0.46 to 0.71 | 0.40 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 69 | 0.71 | 0.57 to 0.81 | 0.60 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 68 | 0.77 | 0.64 to 0.85 | 0.64 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 52 | 0.56 | 0.34 to 0.73 | 0.33 to 0.75 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |

Note: § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ 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 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | 0.76 | 0.68 to 0.82 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.71 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 42 | 0.84 | 0.73 to 0.91 | 1.000 |
| ITO | 0.57 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 40 | 0.63 | 0.39 to 0.79 | 0.995 |
| BPO | 0.71 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | 0.80 | 0.65 to 0.89 | 1.000 |
| KPO | 0.65 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | 0.77 | 0.57 to 0.88 | 1.000 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.60 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 24 | 0.85 | † | 1.000 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.66 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | 0.77 | † | 0.999 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.51 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 19 | 0.51 | † | 0.846 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.72 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | 0.89 | † | 1.000 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.60 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | 0.66 | † | 0.938 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.74 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 13 | 0.86 | † | 0.999 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.62 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | 0.73 | † | 0.968 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.74 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | 0.83 | † | 0.996 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.76 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 11 | 0.93 | † | 1.000 |
| Private equity and private capital | 0.65 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.68 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 47 | 0.75 | 0.59 to 0.85 | 1.000 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.65 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 35 | 0.76 | 0.57 to 0.87 | 1.000 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.49 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 16 | 0.77 | † | 0.994 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.54 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 15 | 0.61 | † | 0.914 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.69 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12 | 0.85 | † | 0.997 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 0.63 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 0.79 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 0.73 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.63 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 76 | 0.74 | 0.62 to 0.83 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.69 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 74 | 0.78 | 0.66 to 0.85 | 1.000 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 0.56 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 31 | 0.66 | 0.41 to 0.82 | 0.995 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 0.57 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 43 | 0.63 | 0.40 to 0.78 | 0.997 |
| Active, Production | 0.43 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 20 | 0.46 | † | 0.777 |
| Canceled | 0.05 | 0.436 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 56 | −0.20 | −0.44 to 0.06 | 0.225 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 0.70 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 150 | 0.76 | 0.68 to 0.82 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | 0.63 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 131 | 0.63 | 0.51 to 0.72 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | 0.44 | 0.053 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 20 | 0.50 | † | 0.841 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 0 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 0.62 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 59 | 0.74 | 0.60 to 0.84 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | 0.70 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 37 | 0.80 | 0.64 to 0.89 | 1.000 |
| Consulting firm | 0.62 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 23 | 0.57 | † | 0.937 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 0.72 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 16 | 0.87 | † | 1.000 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 0.76 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 14 | 0.90 | † | 1.000 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 0.58 | < 0.001 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 44 | 0.58 | 0.34 to 0.75 | 0.988 |

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

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported higher intent to leave (r = 0.66, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.70, Holm p < 0.001, n = 722 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-six 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 | 27 of 55 (49.09%) | 29 of 95 (30.53%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.035 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 59.32%, n = 28 | 66.12%, n = 66 | Welch t | −2.71 | 94 | 0.009 |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.19 | 55 | 0.172 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.07 | 71 | 0.549 |

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 95 other engagements, 95 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 55 engagements with a negative response, 27 (49.09%) were canceled, against 29 of the 95 other engagements (30.53%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.035). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 59.32% on 28 engagements against 66.12% on 66, Welch t −2.71, p = 0.009).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 55 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.19, p = 0.172). Across 71 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.07, p = 0.549). Of the four comparisons, two 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 | 0.70 | 0.60 to 0.77 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | −0.65 | −0.76 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | Engagement | 150 | −0.84 | −0.88 to −0.79 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 722 | 0.66 | 0.61 to 0.71 | < 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 | 0.09 | 4.99 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | 0.15 | 4.33 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differed |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | 0.05 | 1.58 | 0.114 | 0.159 | Did not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | 0.05 | 2.27 | 0.023 | 0.069 | Did not differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | −0.04 | −1.75 | 0.080 | 0.159 | Did not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | −0.09 | −3.62 | < 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, three of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with customer satisfaction the weakest.

## 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 | 5.2 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.54 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 3.23 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 773 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 239 | 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 0.54). Clustering reduced the 773 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 239 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 | 0.70 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | −0.65 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | −0.84 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 722, effective 223 | 0.66 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 1.00 | 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 19. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | 0.70 | 0.71 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | −0.65 | −0.63 | a | 0.03 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.85 | 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 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.73 | −0.81 to −0.62 | 0.12 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | 0.66 | 0.55 | 0.48 to 0.61 | −0.11 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.63 to 0.79 | 0.02 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | −0.65 | −0.67 | −0.77 to −0.53 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.85 | −0.89 to −0.80 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.63 to 0.71 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | 0.70 | 0.70 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | −0.65 | −0.65 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.83 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.61 to 0.78 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | −0.65 | −0.65 | −0.76 to −0.52 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.84 | −0.89 to −0.79 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.61 to 0.71 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.63 to 0.83 | 0.05 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | −0.65 | −0.61 | −0.76 to −0.41 | 0.04 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | −0.82 | −0.88 to −0.73 | 0.03 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.59 to 0.71 | −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.

## 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 | −0.70 | 0.60 | −1.30 | −18.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | −0.79 | 0.72 | −1.51 | −24.00 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | −0.84 | 0.84 | −1.68 | −29.64 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | −0.75 | 0.71 | −1.46 | −22.61 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.39 | | | |
| Verdict | Divergent | | | | | |

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 departed from the study's typical pattern on all four measures. Its association was weaker than the norm on cancellation, customer satisfaction, the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 5 Indicators

Figure 6. Share of negative written responses, Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses (n = 13 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, 98.03%.

Among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 98.81%, ranked 5th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −9.8, ranked 1st from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 7. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 84 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 84 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C199: “I have altered client-provided data” C094: “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” C200: “I discussed the data alteration with internal management” C201: “I or my management discussed data alteration with the client” C108: “Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require.” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: resigned 8, tired 6, frustrated 2, calm or fine 2, stressed 2, proud 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C199, “I have altered client-provided data”, in 74 of the 84 responses (88.10%). C094, “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” (45 responses), C200, “I discussed the data alteration with internal management” (26 responses), C201, “I or my management discussed data alteration with the client” (14 responses) and C108, “Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require.” (12 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Occurs every cycle or most days”, in 74 responses (88.10%). The second was “Told vendor-side management”, in 24 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Stronger agreement that the wider team regularly alters the data provided by the financial institution came with more cancellation, lower customer satisfaction among active engagements, a lower engagement indicator mean and higher intent to leave, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Respondents on canceled engagements rated the statement well above those on the three active stages (mean 6.9, n = 287 respondents).

The written evidence describes the alteration of data as the team's routine answer to source data that arrived in error every cycle and could not be corrected at its source. The team lead usually knew, the fixes were seldom recorded, and the financial institution was seldom told. The associations do not establish that the alterations produced the outcomes. The written responses describe them as one response to the same gaps in data readiness and access that the Part 5 ratings record.

## 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.

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 (84 responses on 55 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses are counted by sets of words stated in each rule. A response that described a practice in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.

## Definitions

Table 21. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | A rating from 1 to 10 of agreement with the statement, with no good or bad end. No distressed range applies. |
| 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 | The five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator is not a rated indicator and carries none. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators. The indicator does not enter it. |
| 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 C203, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C203, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 2,650 |
| 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 | C203.qa.json, sha256 b29db592ab056ce3. C203.wfacts.json, sha256 dba9da1ff27dc228. Hand-written text handcraft/C203.json, sha256 649792394ce65039 |