Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c213/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client

Study Data · Part 5 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client

Indicator C213 · 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 | C213 |
| Question as asked | I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client |
| 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 | 224 of 850 respondents gave one of the listed answers. 265 answered, counting I do not know and I prefer to not answer, across 105 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 25, I prefer to not answer 16, blank 585 |
| Written responses addressing the indicator | 50 responses from 49 respondents on 39 engagements (49 primary, 1 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 | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |
| Intent to leave | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | |

Of the 224 respondents who answered, 1 (0.45%) answered True and 223 (99.55%) answered False. No association with the study measures was tested, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

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

Of the 50 written responses, 43 were negative. At least 22 of the 43 negative responses said the financial institution was not told, or that the correction stayed within the vendor team. The single positive response came from a respondent who had told both the financial institution and their own leadership.

## Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 224) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yes | 1 | 0.45% | 0.45% | 1 | 0.67% | Not applicable |
| No | 223 | 99.55% | 100.00% | 94 | 62.67% | Not applicable |
| I do not know | 25 | Not in base | Not in base | 14 | 9.33% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 16 | Not in base | Not in base | 15 | 10.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 224 | 100.00% | | 94 | 62.67% | |

Of the 224 respondents who answered, 1 (0.45%) answered True and 223 (99.55%) answered False. The non-answers were I do not know (25) and I prefer to not answer (16). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. No engagement was assigned True, and False was the assigned answer on 86 engagements, “I do not know” on 10, “I prefer to not answer” on 3, and 51 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 = 50 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” 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 | 49 | 48 | 38 | 42 of 49 (85.71%) | 35 of 49 (71.43%) | 1 of 49 (2.04%) | −7.8 |
| Secondary | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 | 1 of 1 | 0 of 1 | ‡ |
| All responses | 50 | 49 | 39 | 43 of 50 (86.00%) | 36 of 50 (72.00%) | 1 of 50 (2.00%) | −7.8 |

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

The primary responses numbered 49, written in answer to C216, C214 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 1 responses, 2.00% of the total, were secondary and came from 1 other questions. That secondary share ranked 7th 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 85.71% of primary responses (42 of 49) and 1 of the 1 secondary responses.

In 22 of the 43 negative responses, the respondent said the financial institution was not told, never saw the corrections, or that no one outside the team knew. In 21, the team lead or manager was told or knew. Six responses said the respondent did not know what the financial institution was told, most after telling the team lead.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 50 responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the share of the 50 responses. Labels give the count and the share.Table 5. Summary statistics of written sentimentTable

| Statistic | Value | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mean written score | −7.8 | 95% CI −8.9 to −6.7, cluster bootstrap by engagement, 10,000 draws, n = 50 responses |
| Median written score | −10.0 | n = 50 responses |
| Negative responses | 43 of 50 (86.00%) | 95% CI 76.00% to 94.23% of 50 responses, cluster bootstrap by engagement |
| Strongest negative responses (−10) | 36 of 50 (72.00%) | Statements of totality, constancy or serious harm |
| Positive responses | 1 of 50 (2.00%) | +5 or +10 |
| Net balance | −84.00 percentage points | Share positive minus share negative, base 50 responses |
| Respondent-level mean | −7.9 | Mean of each respondent's own mean written score, n = 49 respondents |

Of the 50 responses, 43 (86.00%, 95% CI 76.00% to 94.23%) were negative and 36 (72.00%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 1 (2.00%), and 6 were neutral. The mean written score was −7.8 (95% CI −8.9 to −6.7, n = 50 responses), and the median was −10.0.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6. Descriptive statistics by segmentTable

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Yes, share | No, share |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 224 | 26.35% of 850 | 105 | 0.45% | 99.55% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 58 | 25.00% of 232 | 29 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| ITO | 244 | 68 | 27.87% of 244 | 31 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| BPO | 209 | 51 | 24.40% of 209 | 24 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| KPO | 165 | 47 | 28.48% of 165 | 21 | 2.13% | 97.87% |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 35 | 26.52% of 132 | 21 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 33 | 23.57% of 140 | 12 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 40 | 38.10% of 105 | 15 | 2.50% | 97.50% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 27 | 34.62% of 78 | 12 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 13 | 15.85% of 82 | 9 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 22 | 30.99% of 71 | 7 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 20 | 27.40% of 73 | 9 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 18 | 24.66% of 73 | 7 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 10 | 17.54% of 57 | 8 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 6 | 15.38% of 39 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 63 | 25.40% of 248 | 32 | 1.59% | 98.41% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 49 | 24.02% of 204 | 25 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 30 | 31.91% of 94 | 13 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 24 | 30.00% of 80 | 9 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 23 | 31.51% of 73 | 8 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 9 | 15.79% of 57 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 12 | 23.53% of 51 | 7 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 14 | 32.56% of 43 | 6 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 128 | 28.38% of 451 | 54 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 96 | 24.06% of 399 | 51 | 1.04% | 98.96% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 33 | 18.86% of 175 | 20 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 33 | 13.20% of 250 | 19 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Active, Production | 103 | 25 | 24.27% of 103 | 11 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Canceled | 322 | 133 | 41.30% of 322 | 55 | 0.75% | 99.25% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 222 | 33.28% of 667 | 105 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 2 | 1.33% of 150 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | 86 | 27.22% of 316 | 41 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 52 | 26.26% of 198 | 28 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 28 | 23.93% of 117 | 14 | 3.57% | 96.43% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 17 | 19.54% of 87 | 10 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 21 | 28.00% of 75 | 10 | 0.00% | 100.00% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 20 | 35.09% of 57 | 21 | 0.00% | 100.00% |

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 | a | | | | | | None |
| Institution type | Engagement | b | | | | | | c |
| Process family | Engagement | b | | | | | | d |
| Class of work | Engagement | a | | | | | | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | Engagement | a | | | | | | None |
| Respondent role | Respondent | b | | | | | | Engagement Manager, n = 2, Portfolio Director, n = 0, Customer Management Executive, n = 0 |
| Vendor type | Respondent | 7.03 | 5 | 0.383 | 0.383 | 0.18 | Monte Carlo, simulated | None |

Note: a Not tested: fewer than two levels on one side of the table. b Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements. c Levels excluded: Commercial and business banking, n = 6, Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing), n = 6, Credit card and payments issuing, n = 8, Retail and consumer banking, n = 5, Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets), n = 5, Private equity and private capital, n = 4. d Levels excluded: Client servicing and communications, n = 8, Trade, settlement and reconciliation, n = 8, Payments, cards and disputes, n = 8, Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 4, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 6, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 4.

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 | 5 | 5 | 3 | ‡ | 5 of 5 | 2 of 5 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 8 | 8 | 8 | ‡ | 7 of 8 | 7 of 8 |
| Active, Production | 6 | 6 | 3 | ‡ | 6 of 6 | 6 of 6 |
| Canceled | 31 | 30 | 25 | −7.3 | 25 of 31 (80.65%) | 21 of 31 (67.74%) |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 48 | 48 | 38 | −8.0 | 42 of 48 (87.50%) | 35 of 48 (72.92%) |
| Engagement Manager | 2 | 1 | 1 | ‡ | 1 of 2 | 1 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 39 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 2.45, df 3, p = 0.485). Fewer than two groups held 10 or more responses, so the groups are reported as counts only: active engagements in Build-Out (5), active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over (8), active engagements in Production (6) and canceled engagements (31).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 48 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 | 0 | No engagements | |
| No | 86 | 43 | 50.00% |
| I do not know | 10 | 5 | 50.00% |
| I prefer to not answer | 3 | 2 | ‡ |

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 | 99 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 28 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 29 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 30 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | b | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 52 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 47 | a | | | | | |
| 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 assigned False, 43 of 86 were canceled. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

## 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 | 0 | No engagements | |
| No | 43 | 60.1 | 9.6 |
| I do not know | 5 | ‡ | |
| I prefer to not answer | 1 | ‡ | |

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 | 49 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 14 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 16 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 10 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| 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) | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 6 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 3 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 25 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 24 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 10 | 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 was 60.1% (n = 43 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

## 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 | 0 | No engagements | |
| No | 86 | 3.5 | 1.2 |
| I do not know | 10 | 3.9 | 1.5 |
| I prefer to not answer | 3 | ‡ | |

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 | 99 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 28 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 29 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 30 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 52 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 47 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 50 | a | | | | | |

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

The engagement indicator mean was 3.5 (n = 86 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

## 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 | 0 | No engagements | |
| No | 86 | 7.6 | 2.0 |
| I do not know | 10 | 7.4 | 2.3 |
| I prefer to not answer | 3 | ‡ | |

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 | 99 | a | | | | | |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 28 | a | | | | | |
| ITO | 29 | a | | | | | |
| BPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| KPO | 21 | a | | | | | |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Wealth management and private banking | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 15 | a | | | | | |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 12 | a | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 30 | a | | | | | |
| Technology engineering and operations | 23 | a | | | | | |
| Client servicing and communications | 13 | a | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 52 | a | | | | | |
| Corporate Functional | 47 | a | | | | | |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 20 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 19 | a | | | | | |
| Active, Production | 10 | a | | | | | |
| Canceled | 50 | a | | | | | |

Note: ‡ 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 7.6 (n = 86 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

## 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 | 22 of 35 (62.86%) | 34 of 115 (29.57%) | Fisher exact | | 150 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction, active engagements | 60.38%, n = 13 | 64.69%, n = 81 | Welch t | −1.37 | 94 | 0.188 |
| Engagement mean written score and cancellation, engagements | | | Point-biserial r | 0.19 | 39 | 0.238 |
| Respondent mean written score and intent to leave, respondents | | | Spearman rho | 0.03 | 48 | 0.847 |

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 115 other engagements, 111 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 35 engagements with a negative response, 22 (62.86%) were canceled, against 34 of the 115 other engagements (29.57%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p < 0.001). Customer satisfaction among active engagements did not differ between the two groups (mean 60.38% on 13 engagements against 64.69% on 81, Welch t −1.37, p = 0.188).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 39 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r 0.19, p = 0.238). Across 48 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho 0.03, p = 0.847). Of the four 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 | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |
| Intent to leave | Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements | | | | | |

Fewer than two associations were tested, so no comparison across the measures applies.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 19. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 105 | Engagements with one or more answers. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 2.5 | Answers per engagement, among engagements with one or more answers. |
| ICC(1) | 0.43 | Share of the variance that lies between engagements. |
| Design effect | 1.66 | One plus the product of the ICC and the mean cluster size less one. |
| Nominal respondent n | 265 | Every answer, with “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” counted as levels, as in the plurality rule. |
| Effective n | 160 | 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 0.43). Clustering reduced the 265 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 160 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 | a | | | | | | |
| Customer satisfaction | a | | | | | | |
| Engagement indicator mean | a | | | | | | |
| Intent to leave | a | | | | | | |

Note: a Not tested: fewer than two levels of 10 or more engagements.

No association was tested, so no equivalence test applies. 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 | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Kruskal-Wallis in place of Welch F | Intent to leave | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Cancellation rate | Not computed | < 0.001 | 51.07 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Customer satisfaction | Not computed | < 0.001 | 74.05 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Engagement indicator mean | Not computed | < 0.001 | 87.49 | Not computed |
| Respondent level, cluster-robust Wald F by engagement | Intent to leave | Not computed | < 0.001 | 16.71 | Not computed |

No robustness check could be computed, because no primary test was computed.

## 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, 86.00%, ranked 9th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −7.8, ranked 3rd 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 = 50 responses)ExhibitNote: Themes carry no score. Labels give the count and the share of the 50 responses. The figure shows each indicator and each theme among the five most frequent of its kind, with every tie at the cut. C212: “I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management” C211: “I have altered AI outputs” C157: “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” C159: “Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once.” C036: “What stage is the engagement in?” Emotional states in the same responses, as counts: calm or fine 4, frustrated 3, tired 2, resigned 2, stressed 2.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C212, “I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management”, in 45 of the 50 responses (90.00%). C211, “I have altered AI outputs” (28 responses), C157, “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” (27 responses), C159, “Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once.” (8 responses) and C036, “What stage is the engagement in?” (5 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Financial institution was not told”, in 31 responses (62.00%). The second was “Told vendor-side management”, in 28 responses.

## Interpretation of the Data

Of the respondents who answered, 0.45% said they or their management had discussed the AI output alteration with the financial institution (one of 224). No engagement was assigned the answer True, so no association with the study measures could be tested.

The written evidence matches the answers. Respondents described the correction of AI outputs as routine work, checked line by line within the team, often known to the team lead and seldom raised with the financial institution.

## 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 (50 responses on 39 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.

With one respondents answering True, the indicator supports a description of how rarely the AI output alteration was discussed and no comparison by answer.

## 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 C213, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C213, sha256 1ae50a3637fc9370 |
| Computed | October 13, 2026, 04:57 UTC |
| Template | Indicator Template v2, version 2.0 of 10 October 2026 |
| Figures placed by script | 777 |
| 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 | C213.qa.json, sha256 f5aa4edcdaaf1b66. C213.wfacts.json, sha256 d8c46a67c6923f40. Hand-written text handcraft/C213.json, sha256 9c33dac561bffb05 |