Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c212/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management

Study Data · Part 5 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management

Indicator C212 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

25 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of ResponsesCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive 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 | C212 |
| Question as asked | I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Challenge Deep Dive > 5.6 Alterations > AI Output |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Yes or no |
| Response scale | Levels: Yes, No |
| Answering base | 253 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers. 270 answered, counting I do not know and I prefer to not answer, across 108 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 0, I prefer to not answer 17, blank 580 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 95 responses from 95 respondents on 61 engagements (93 primary, 2 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

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

| Measure | Effect size | n | Value | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Omega squared, 0 or 1 flag | 93 engagements | 0.010 | 0.163 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 42 engagements | 0.033 | 0.063 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 93 engagements | 0.018 | 0.080 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 93 engagements | 0.012 | 0.131 |

Of the 253 respondents who answered, 150 (59.29%) answered True and 103 (40.71%) answered False. At engagement level, the answer was not associated with any study measure tested.

The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Of the 95 written responses, 67 were positive and 26 negative. The positive responses, nearly all under C216, said the respondent had told the team lead or manager, and some added that the financial institution was not told. Most negative responses came from respondents who had told no one, or no one above them.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 253) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 150 | 59.29% | 59.29% | 74 | 49.33% | Not applicable |
| No | 103 | 40.71% | 100.00% | 55 | 36.67% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 17 | Not in base | Not in base | 16 | 10.67% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 253 | 100.00% | | 104 | 69.33% | |

Of the 253 respondents who answered, 150 (59.29%) answered True and 103 (40.71%) answered False. The non-answers were I prefer to not answer (17). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. True was the assigned answer on 57 engagements and False on 36, “I prefer to not answer” on 4, and 53 engagements were tied or unanswered and carry no assigned answer.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses addressing the indicator, by question answered and written score (n = 95 responses)ExhibitNote: Each bar is one survey question. C216, C214 and C204 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. C216 asked: “Comment” C214 asked: “Why did you alter AI outputs?” C204 asked: “Comment” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.”Table 4. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 93 | 93 | 59 | 25 of 93 (26.88%) | 22 of 93 (23.66%) | 66 of 93 (70.97%) | 1.5 |
| Secondary | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 of 2 | 1 of 2 | 1 of 2 | ‡ |
| All responses | 95 | 95 | 61 | 26 of 95 (27.37%) | 23 of 95 (24.21%) | 67 of 95 (70.53%) | 1.4 |

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

The primary responses numbered 93, written in answer to C216, C214 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 2 responses, 2.11% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. That secondary share ranked 6th from the highest among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 2.00%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 0. Negative responses made up 26.88% of primary responses (25 of 93) and 1 of the 2 secondary responses.

The 86 responses to C216 described how the alteration was handled within the vendor. In 62, the respondent said they told the team lead, manager or team, or that the lead or manager already knew. Respondents placed the alteration at a frequency, such as every cycle, most weeks or seven out of ten, in 50 responses, and said that telling the lead changed nothing at the financial institution in 3.

Across all questions, respondents said the financial institution was not told in 15 responses. No response said the financial institution had been told. In 21 of the 26 negative responses, the respondent said they had told no one, or no one above them, of the alteration. One respondent who had told the lead once said it felt held against them, and no longer mentioned it.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 95 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 95 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | 1.4 | 95% CI −0.1 to 2.7, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 95 responses |
| Median written score | 5.0 | n = 95 responses |
| Negative responses | 26 of 95 (27.37%) | 95% CI 18.39% to 37.37% of 95 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 23 of 95 (24.21%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 67 of 95 (70.53%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | 43.16 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 95 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | 1.4 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 95 respondents |

Of the 95 responses, 26 (27.37%, 95% CI 18.39% to 37.37%) were negative and 23 (24.21%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 67 (70.53%), and 2 were neutral. The mean written score was 1.4 (95% CI −0.1 to 2.7, n = 95 responses), and the median was 5.0.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Yes, share | No, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 253 | 29.76% of 850 | 108 | 59.29% | 40.71% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 66 | 28.45% of 232 | 29 | 46.97% | 53.03% |
| ITO | 244 | 74 | 30.33% of 244 | 31 | 51.35% | 48.65% |
| BPO | 209 | 65 | 31.10% of 209 | 26 | 76.92% | 23.08% |
| KPO | 165 | 48 | 29.09% of 165 | 22 | 64.58% | 35.42% |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 41 | 31.06% of 132 | 21 | 63.41% | 36.59% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 39 | 27.86% of 140 | 13 | 46.15% | 53.85% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 41 | 39.05% of 105 | 16 | 56.10% | 43.90% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 26 | 33.33% of 78 | 12 | 65.38% | 34.62% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 16 | 19.51% of 82 | 9 | 56.25% | 43.75% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 23 | 32.39% of 71 | 7 | 60.87% | 39.13% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 25 | 34.25% of 73 | 9 | 48.00% | 52.00% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 21 | 28.77% of 73 | 7 | 76.19% | 23.81% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 14 | 24.56% of 57 | 8 | 64.29% | 35.71% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 7 | 17.95% of 39 | 6 | 6 | 1 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 73 | 29.44% of 248 | 32 | 67.12% | 32.88% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 48 | 23.53% of 204 | 25 | 52.08% | 47.92% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 34 | 36.17% of 94 | 13 | 41.18% | 58.82% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 30 | 37.50% of 80 | 11 | 80.00% | 20.00% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 25 | 34.25% of 73 | 9 | 60.00% | 40.00% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 8 | 14.04% of 57 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 18 | 35.29% of 51 | 7 | 55.56% | 44.44% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 17 | 39.53% of 43 | 6 | 52.94% | 47.06% |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 151 | 33.48% of 451 | 57 | 60.26% | 39.74% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 102 | 25.56% of 399 | 51 | 57.84% | 42.16% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 31 | 17.71% of 175 | 20 | 54.84% | 45.16% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 40 | 16.00% of 250 | 21 | 82.50% | 17.50% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 29 | 28.16% of 103 | 12 | 58.62% | 41.38% |
| Canceled | 322 | 153 | 47.52% of 322 | 55 | 54.25% | 45.75% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 251 | 37.63% of 667 | 108 | 58.96% | 41.04% |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 2 | 1.33% of 150 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 97 | 30.70% of 316 | 41 | 52.58% | 47.42% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 61 | 30.81% of 198 | 29 | 70.49% | 29.51% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 29 | 24.79% of 117 | 15 | 55.17% | 44.83% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 19 | 21.84% of 87 | 10 | 36.84% | 63.16% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 23 | 30.67% of 75 | 11 | 82.61% | 17.39% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 24 | 42.11% of 57 | 21 | 58.33% | 41.67% |

Each share is computed on the respondents who answered in that row. Rows with fewer than 10 respondents report counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7. Tests of difference between segmentsTable

| Segment family | Unit | Chi-square | df | p | Holm p | Cramer's V | Test for p | Levels excluded |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | Engagement | 4.15 | 3 | 0.246 | 0.963 | 0.21 | chi-square | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | 0.75 | 3 | 0.863 | 1.000 | 0.12 | Monte Carlo, simulated | b |
| Process family | Engagement | 2.24 | 3 | 0.532 | 1.000 | 0.18 | Monte Carlo, simulated | c |
| Class of work | Engagement | 1.38 | 1 | 0.241 | 0.963 | 0.12 | chi-square | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | 7.47 | 3 | 0.058 | 0.289 | 0.28 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |
| Respondent role | Respondent | a | | | | | | Engagement Manager, n = 2, Portfolio Director, n = 0, Customer Management Executive, n = 0 |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 14.34 | 5 | 0.014 | 0.081 | 0.24 | chi-square | None |

Note: a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Levels excluded: Commercial and business banking, n = 6, Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing), n = 7, Credit card and payments issuing, n = 9, Retail and consumer banking, n = 6, Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets), n = 7, Private equity and private capital, n = 5. c Levels excluded: Payments, cards and disputes, n = 8, Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 3, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 5, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 6.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagements, and respondent role and vendor type on respondents. The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

## Written Sentiment by Segment

Figure 3. 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 8. Written sentiment by segmentTable

| Segment | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Mean written score | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 16 | 16 | 11 | 2.8 | 3 of 16 (18.75%) | 3 of 16 (18.75%) |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 19 | 19 | 15 | 1.6 | 5 of 19 (26.32%) | 4 of 19 (21.05%) |
| Active, Production | 10 | 10 | 7 | 4.5 | 1 of 10 (10.00%) | 1 of 10 (10.00%) |
| Canceled | 50 | 50 | 28 | 0.2 | 17 of 50 (34.00%) | 15 of 50 (30.00%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 93 | 93 | 60 | 1.3 | 26 of 93 (27.96%) | 23 of 93 (24.73%) |
| Engagement Manager | 2 | 2 | 2 | ‡ | 0 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
| Portfolio Director | 0 | 0 | 0 | No responses | | |
| 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 61 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 5.74, df 3, p = 0.125). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean 0.2, 50 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 4.5, 10 responses).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 93 responses, engagement managers 2.

## 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. Each test compares the engagements by their assigned answer, within the study set and within each segment.

Table 9. Association with cancellation rate by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 57 | 28 | 49.12% |
| No | 36 | 23 | 63.89% |
| I prefer to not answer | 4 | 1 | ‡ |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 10. Association with cancellation rate, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Chi-square | df | p | Holm p | Cramer's V | Test for p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 93 | 1.94 | 1 | 0.163 | 0.654 | 0.14 | chi-square |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 24 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.682 | 1.000 | 0.08 | chi-square |
| ITO | 27 | 6.75 | 1 | 0.009 | 0.056 | 0.50 | chi-square |
| BPO | 22 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 20 | 1.82 | 1 | 0.370 | 1.000 | 0.30 | Fisher exact |
| Client servicing and communications | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 51 | 2.53 | 1 | 0.111 | 0.557 | 0.22 | chi-square |
| Corporate Functional | 42 | 0.14 | 1 | 0.711 | 1.000 | 0.06 | chi-square |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | | b | | | | | |
| Active, Production | | b | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Not tested: no variation in cancellation.

Of the engagements whose respondents most often answered True, 28 of 57 (49.12%) were canceled, against 23 of 36 (63.89%) of those whose respondents most often answered False (chi-square 1.94, p = 0.163, Cramer's V 0.14, n = 93 engagements). The difference did not reach significance.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements.

Table 11. Association with customer satisfaction by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 29 | 63.3 | 12.4 |
| No | 13 | 57.5 | 6.9 |
| I prefer to not answer | 3 | ‡ | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 12. Association with customer satisfaction, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 42 | 3.67 | 1, 38.0 | 0.063 | 0.063 | 0.033 | 0.000 to 0.197 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 11 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 14 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 11 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 2 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 24 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | | b | | | | | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. b Not tested: canceled engagements fall outside the active population.

Among active engagements, customer satisfaction had a mean of 63.3% (n = 29 engagements) where respondents most often answered True and 57.5% (n = 13 engagements) where they most often answered False (Welch F 3.67, p = 0.063, omega squared 0.033, n = 42 engagements). The difference did not reach significance.

## 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. The indicator is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

Table 13. Association with the engagement indicator mean by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 57 | 3.6 | 1.4 |
| No | 36 | 3.2 | 1.0 |
| I prefer to not answer | 4 | ‡ | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 14. Association with the engagement indicator mean, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 93 | 3.13 | 1, 89.2 | 0.080 | 0.401 | 0.018 | 0.000 to 0.105 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 24 | 1.26 | 1, 17.9 | 0.277 | 0.832 | 0.011 | † |
| ITO | 27 | 8.95 | 1, 23.0 | 0.007 | 0.046 | 0.205 | † |
| BPO | 22 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 20 | 6.92 | 1, 15.3 | 0.019 | 0.112 | 0.228 | † |
| Client servicing and communications | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 51 | 2.75 | 1, 40.6 | 0.105 | 0.419 | 0.025 | 0.000 to 0.165 |
| Corporate Functional | 42 | 0.75 | 1, 38.5 | 0.392 | 0.832 | −0.007 | 0.000 to 0.127 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 51 | 0.39 | 1, 42.5 | 0.538 | 0.832 | −0.012 | 0.000 to 0.091 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

The engagement indicator mean was 3.6 (n = 57 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 3.2 (n = 36 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 3.13, p = 0.080, omega squared 0.018, n = 93 engagements). The difference did not reach significance.

## 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 by up to 798 respondents. For the indicator, the comparison uses the mean intent to leave of each engagement.

Table 15. Association with intent to leave by answer levelTable

| Answer level | Engagements | Mean of the measure | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 57 | 7.3 | 2.3 |
| No | 36 | 8.0 | 1.8 |
| I prefer to not answer | 4 | ‡ | |

Note: ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.Table 16. Association with intent to leave, tests across answer levels by segmentTable

| Segment | Engagements | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 93 | 2.32 | 1, 85.9 | 0.131 | 0.788 | 0.012 | 0.000 to 0.094 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 24 | 0.21 | 1, 22.0 | 0.655 | 0.960 | −0.034 | † |
| ITO | 27 | 3.89 | 1, 24.7 | 0.060 | 0.420 | 0.088 | † |
| BPO | 22 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 14 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 20 | 1.75 | 1, 17.5 | 0.203 | 0.960 | 0.036 | † |
| Client servicing and communications | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 51 | 1.76 | 1, 38.8 | 0.192 | 0.960 | 0.010 | 0.000 to 0.141 |
| Corporate Functional | 42 | 0.63 | 1, 40.0 | 0.433 | 0.960 | −0.010 | 0.000 to 0.122 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 16 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 18 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 11 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 51 | 1.24 | 1, 39.7 | 0.272 | 0.960 | 0.006 | 0.000 to 0.133 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

The engagement mean of intent to leave was 7.3 (n = 57 engagements) on engagements whose respondents most often answered True and 8.0 (n = 36 engagements) on those whose respondents most often answered False (Welch F 2.32, p = 0.131, omega squared 0.012, n = 93 engagements). The difference did not reach significance.

## Association of Written Sentiment with the Study Measures

Table 17. Written sentiment and the study measuresTable

| Comparison | With a negative response | Without a negative response | Test | Statistic | n | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate, engagements | 15 of 23 (65.22%) | 41 of 127 (32.28%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | 0.004 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | n = 8 | 64.66%, n = 86 | ‡ | | 94 | |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | −0.25 | 61 | 0.050 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | −0.16 | 90 | 0.121 |

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

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 127 other engagements, 89 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 23 engagements with a negative response, 15 (65.22%) were canceled, against 41 of the 127 other engagements (32.28%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.004). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 61 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.25, p = 0.050). Across 90 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.16, p = 0.121). Of the three comparisons, one reached significance at 0.05.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 18. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Effect size | n | Value | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Omega squared, 0 or 1 flag | 93 | 0.010 | 0.163 | No | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Omega squared | 42 | 0.033 | 0.063 | No | 1 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Omega squared | 93 | 0.018 | 0.080 | No | 2 |
| Intent to leave | Omega squared | 93 | 0.012 | 0.131 | No | 3 |

Steiger's z compares two correlations. A categorical indicator yields an effect size across its levels and not a correlation, so the pairs of measures were not compared by test. On omega squared, the association was strongest with customer satisfaction (0.033) and weakest with cancellation (0.010).

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 19. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 108 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 2.5 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.39 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 1.59 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 270 | Every answer, with “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” counted as levels, as in the plurality rule. |
| Effective n | 170 | 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 0.39). Clustering reduced the 270 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 170 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 20. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | Omega squared | Equivalence bound | Equivalence p | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 93 | 0.010 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.051 | No | 0.85 | 0.079 |
| Customer satisfaction | 42 | 0.033 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.313 | No | 0.51 | 0.164 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 93 | 0.018 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.084 | No | 0.85 | 0.079 |
| Intent to leave | 93 | 0.012 | Omega squared < 0.090 | 0.057 | No | 0.85 | 0.079 |

No association tested was equivalent to zero. The equivalence bound is an omega squared of 0.090, the study's threshold for a negligible association expressed as variance explained.

## Robustness Checks

Table 21. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary p | Check p | Check statistic | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Customer satisfaction | 0.063 | 0.187 | 1.74 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | 0.080 | 0.177 | 1.82 | Yes |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | 0.131 | 0.390 | 0.74 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.080 | 0.086 | 3.14 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | 0.131 | 0.362 | 0.86 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | 0.163 | 0.136 | 2.26 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | 0.063 | 0.066 | 3.44 | Yes |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | 0.080 | < 0.001 | 18.26 | No |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | 0.131 | 0.013 | 6.38 | No |

Seven of the nine checks computed held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. The checks replace Welch's F with a Kruskal-Wallis test, repeat the tests on active engagements alone, and repeat them at respondent level with a Wald F clustered by engagement.

Two checks failed. The respondent-level clustered check for the engagement indicator mean gave p < 0.001, against p = 0.080 for the primary test. The respondent-level clustered check for intent to leave gave p = 0.013, against p = 0.131 for the primary test.

## 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

A categorical indicator has no signed correlation with the study measures and therefore no profile against the study norm. The comparison by answer appears in the four association sections.

## Comparison of Written Sentiment with Other Part 5 Indicators

Figure 4. 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, 27.37%, ranked 11th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, 1.4, ranked 11th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 5. Other indicators and themes in the same written responses (n = 95 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 95 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C211: “I have altered AI outputs” C157: “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” C213: “I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client” C159: “Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once.” C215: “My greater team regularly alters AI outputs.” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: resigned 7, calm or fine 5, tired 4, frustrated 4, stressed 3, proud 1.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C211, “I have altered AI outputs”, in 54 of the 95 responses (56.84%). C157, “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” (51 responses), C213, “I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client” (45 responses), C159, “Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once.” (16 responses) and C215, “My greater team regularly alters AI outputs.” (8 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 72 responses (75.79%). The second was “Human rework absorbs the failure”, in 45 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Of the respondents who answered, 59.29% said they had discussed the AI output alteration with internal management. At engagement level, the answer was not associated with any of the four study measures. Two of the respondent-level clustered checks, for the engagement indicator mean and for intent to leave, reached significance where the engagement-level tests did not, so the absence of an association did not hold at respondent level.

The written evidence describes disclosure that stopped inside the vendor. Respondents who discussed the alteration told the team lead or manager, and few responses said the financial institution had been told. Respondents who told no one described the same corrections made in silence, some because raising it had changed nothing or would mean a hard conversation with their own manager.

## 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. The answer is the respondent's own report of an alteration and not a record of it.

Each engagement carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, and tied engagements are excluded from the engagement-level tests.

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 (95 responses on 61 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 22. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | The answer is True or False to the statement shown in the indicator specification. The indicator is not a rating. No distressed range applies. |
| Answering base | Respondents who answered True or False. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately. They are excluded from the answering base and from the shares. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a report of the respondent's own action. Each engagement also carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, for the engagement-level tests. |
| Failure category | The five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy apply only to the rated indicators. The indicator 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 23. Sources and provenanceTable

| Source | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C212, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C212, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 1,035 |
| 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 c7b10c57927ea734 |
| Written-response records | C212.qa.json, sha256 34050bd90aefe27d. C212.wfacts.json, sha256 73d6eeb60d91eabb. Hand-written text handcraft/C212.json, sha256 cacda286674b39c2 |


## Links to related study evidence

- [Part 5](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-5-manual-alteration/)
- [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/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C211](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c211/)
- [C157](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c157/)
- [C213](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c213/)
- [C159](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c159/)
- [C215](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c215/)