Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-5-manual-alteration/distribution-of-manual-alteration-across-roles/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

Distribution of Manual Alteration Across Roles

The 2026 Report · Part 5

# Distribution of Manual Alteration Across Roles

Individual contributors, engagement managers, and portfolio directors

By Phil Hatch · Akholi · Version 1.8.2

Complete study · PDFPart 5 · PDFStudy overview / Part 5 / Distribution of Manual Alteration Across Roles

Individual contributors reported manual alteration more often than the other roles, with at least one method reported by 627 of 667 individual contributors (94.00%), 100 of 150 engagement managers (66.67%), and 11 of 31 portfolio directors (35.48%). Neither of the two customer management executives reported a method. These counts combine direct personal answers with written descriptions of practices on the engagement, so they do not measure personal performance of manual alteration uniformly across roles.

Individual contributors reported manual alteration of data, processes, and AI outputs more often than engagement managers. For process manual alteration, the counts were 515 of 667 individual contributors (77.21%) and 28 of 150 engagement managers (18.67%). Reporting alteration was described by similar shares of engagement managers and individual contributors: 87 of 150 (58.00%) and 384 of 667 (57.57%), respectively. Third-party work done by hand was described by 25 engagement managers (16.67%) and 79 individual contributors (11.84%). The comparisons describe reporting by role, not a direct allocation of responsibility for the work.

Figure 5.11. Respondents reporting each manual alteration method, by role

Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.

Manual alteration methods had different reported distributions across roles

Individual contributorsEngagement managersPortfolio directors

Exact chart data

| Series | Point index | Category | Value as stored |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Individual contributors | 0 | Financial-institution-provided data | 65.37 |
| Individual contributors | 1 | Financial institution processes | 77.209999999999994 |
| Individual contributors | 2 | AI outputs | 47.08 |
| Individual contributors | 3 | Reporting alteration | 57.57 |
| Individual contributors | 4 | Third-party work done by hand | 11.84 |
| Engagement managers | 0 | Financial-institution-provided data | 10 |
| Engagement managers | 1 | Financial institution processes | 18.670000000000002 |
| Engagement managers | 2 | AI outputs | 8.67 |
| Engagement managers | 3 | Reporting alteration | 58 |
| Engagement managers | 4 | Third-party work done by hand | 16.670000000000002 |
| Portfolio directors | 0 | Financial-institution-provided data | 3.23 |
| Portfolio directors | 1 | Financial institution processes | 9.68 |
| Portfolio directors | 2 | AI outputs | 3.23 |
| Portfolio directors | 3 | Reporting alteration | 19.350000000000001 |
| Portfolio directors | 4 | Third-party work done by hand | 12.9 |

Note: Shares use all respondents in each role: 667 individual contributors, 150 engagement managers, and 31 portfolio directors. Neither of the two customer management executives reported a method, and they are omitted from the figure. A report may concern personal action or a practice described on the engagement.

Table 5.6. Respondents reporting each manual alteration method, by role

| Method | Individual contributors | Engagement managers | Portfolio directors |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Manual alteration of financial-institution-provided data | 436 of 667 (65.37%) | 15 of 150 (10.00%) | 1 of 31 (3.23%) |
| Manual alteration of financial institution processes | 515 of 667 (77.21%) | 28 of 150 (18.67%) | 3 of 31 (9.68%) |
| Manual alteration of AI outputs | 314 of 667 (47.08%) | 13 of 150 (8.67%) | 1 of 31 (3.23%) |
| Reporting alteration | 384 of 667 (57.57%) | 87 of 150 (58.00%) | 6 of 31 (19.35%) |
| Third-party work done by hand | 79 of 667 (11.84%) | 25 of 150 (16.67%) | 4 of 31 (12.90%) |
| Any of the five methods | 627 of 667 (94.00%) | 100 of 150 (66.67%) | 11 of 31 (35.48%) |

Note: A respondent is counted after a direct True answer or a written description of the method on the engagement. These sources do not uniformly establish personal performance of the method. Counts overlap across methods, and no report is not proof that a practice did not occur.

## 1 Engagement Managers and Portfolio Directors

Reporting alteration accounted for most method reports from engagement managers. Of the 100 engagement managers reporting any method, 87 described reporting alteration, 15 reported data manual alteration, and 13 reported AI-output manual alteration. Among all 31 portfolio directors, six described reporting alteration and four described third-party work done by hand. The pattern concerns what these roles reported, rather than a verified division of work or knowledge.

> “The vendor excluded misrouted regulated inquiries from the routing-accuracy dashboard by reclassifying them as client-side data errors after the fact, so the reported accuracy stayed above threshold while the actual misroutes kept mounting.” -Engagement Manager, CXM, Client servicing and communications

> The vendor's portfolio reporting rolled this engagement's missed savings targets into a blended regional average, which kept the account's failure from showing clearly in any single dashboard view.” PORTFOLIO DIRECTOR · KPO, Corporate and back-office functions

← Manual Alteration by Cancellation Status and Engagement Indicator MeanReasons Given for Manual Alteration →