Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/appendices/appendix-e-companion-indicator-statistical-analyses/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

Appendix E: Companion Indicator Statistical Analyses

The 2026 Report · Appendices

# Appendix E: Companion Indicator Statistical Analyses

A register of the 216 detailed analyses underlying the report

By Phil Hatch · Akholi · Version 1.8.2

Complete study · PDFAppendices · PDFStudy overview / Appendices / Appendix E: Companion Indicator Statistical Analyses

The 216 companion analyses provide indicator-level statistics and related derived analyses. Each follows a common structure, adapted to the type of measure and available evidence.

Analyses are grouped by the Part of the report that summarizes them. A first group of 46 analyses (Part 1) covers the three study measures computed from the engagement record, seven engagement fields, 31 survey questions on the engagement and the financial institution, and five derived analyses. Those derived analyses treat the active engagements, the four measures together, the indicator quintiles, measured return, and the associations net of the engagement indicator mean.

The second group of 101 analyses (Part 2) covers the 100 rated indicators of the five failure categories and one question on the vendor's preparedness to manage outsourcing engagements. The third group holds 48 analyses (Part 4), 47 on questions about the delivery workforce and one a derived analysis of experience by intent to leave. The fourth group holds 21 analyses (Part 5), 19 on manual alteration, its disclosure, and reporting alteration, and two derived analyses of manual alteration by role.

A companion analysis identifies the measure, wording, analytical unit, scale, valid responses, and non-answers. It then provides descriptive results, eligible segment comparisons, associations with the four core measures, written-evidence summaries, and applicable diagnostic checks.

Statistical sections include clustering, equivalence, robustness, and comparisons with the study norm where applicable. Exclusion of an item from a composite reduces mechanical self-inclusion but does not make the variables independent. Co-occurrence and written-sentiment comparisons provide further descriptive context.

Each companion analysis includes interpretation, limitations, definitions, and source information. Source sections identify input files and computational records, with fingerprints, computation dates, and template versions where available. These identifiers support traceability; they do not by themselves establish public availability of every input or independent reproducibility.

Appendix B maps each indicator to its main-text section and companion-analysis filename. The online index below provides access to the published pages.

The 216 companion analyses are available through Akholi’s “Agentic AI Outsourcing Study Data” index at https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/ (accessed October 16, 2026). The index also links related derived analyses. Online access to analysis pages should be distinguished from access to the underlying respondent data, computational environment, and all materials needed for independent reproduction.

Table 36. Register of the companion indicator statistical analyses

| Part | Companion analysis | Subject | Where reported |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Part 1 | Analysis: Active Engagements | Analysis: Active Engagements | Part 1, 4.2.3; Introduction, 4.4.2; Part 1, 2 |
| Part 1 | Analysis: Four Measures | Analysis: Four Measures | Part 1, 4.2.1 |
| Part 1 | Analysis: Mean Quintiles | Analysis: Mean Quintiles | Part 1, 4.2.2 |
| Part 1 | Analysis: Measured Return | Analysis: Measured Return | Part 1, 3.3.1; Introduction, 4.5.5 |
| Part 1 | Analysis: Net Associations | Analysis: Net Associations | Part 1, 4.3.1 |
| Part 1 | C031 | What type of a bank is the customer? | Part 1, 5.1.1 |
| Part 1 | C032 | What is the outsourcing type? | Part 1, 5.3.1 |
| Part 1 | C033 | Is the outsourcing engagement Corporate Functional, or Line of Business Operational? | Part 1, 5.3.2 |
| Part 1 | C035 | How long ago did this specific engagement start, in months? | Part 1, 1.1.2 |
| Part 1 | C036 | What stage is the engagement in? | Part 1, 1.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.2 |
| Part 1 | C037 | How many months has the engagement been in its current stage? | Part 1, 1.1.3 |
| Part 1 | C038 | Per the current plan, how many months from today until the engagement reaches Production/Delivery? | Part 1, 1.1.4 |
| Part 1 | C039 | If the engagement has not been canceled, how likely is the customer to cancel the engagement? | Part 1, 2.2.1 |
| Part 1 | C040 | How many people are on the vendor team for this engagement today? | Part 1, 5.6.1 |
| Part 1 | C041 | What was the peak vendor team headcount on this engagement to date? | Part 1, 5.6.2 |
| Part 1 | C042 | Per the current plan, how many people will be on the vendor team 12 months from now? | Part 1, 5.6.3 |
| Part 1 | C043 | How many AI agents are running in production on this engagement today? | Part 1, 1.2.1 |
| Part 1 | C044 | What is the pricing model for this engagement? | Part 1, 5.4.1 |
| Part 1 | C045 | What is the contract term of this engagement, in months? | Part 1, 5.4.2 |
| Part 1 | C046 | What is the annual contract value of this engagement, in USD? | Part 1, 5.4.3 |
| Part 1 | C047 | I know the KPIs the customer uses to measure success. | Part 1, 3.2.4 |
| Part 1 | C048 | The customer is happy with the performance of the engagement at this stage. | Part 1, 3.1.2 |
| Part 1 | C049 | The engagement is meeting delivery dates successfully. | Part 1, 3.2.1 |
| Part 1 | C050 | The engagement is within budget. | Part 1, 3.2.2 |
| Part 1 | C051 | The engagement is not achieving stated KPIs. | Part 1, 3.2.3 |
| Part 1 | C062 | What is the customer's approximate total asset size, in USD? | Part 1, 5.1.2 |
| Part 1 | C063 | Does the customer operate its own global capability centers? | Part 1, 5.1.3 |
| Part 1 | C064 | How many months has your employer been serving this customer across all work, not just this engagement? | Part 1, 5.2.1 |
| Part 1 | C065 | How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements does your employer run concurrently with this customer today? | Part 1, 5.2.2 |
| Part 1 | C066 | The customer is scaling their agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | Part 1, 5.1.5 |
| Part 1 | C067 | The customer is increasing the number of agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | Part 1, 5.1.6 |
| Part 1 | C068 | The customer is shifting more work to their global capability centers. | Part 1, 5.1.4 |
| Part 1 | C076 | What type of company is your employer? | Part 1, 5.5.1 |
| Part 1 | C077 | Approximately how many employees does your employer have worldwide? | Part 1, 5.5.2 |
| Part 1 | C078 | How many years has your employer been delivering agentic AI outsourcing? | Part 1, 1.2.2 |
| Part 1 | C079 | How many agentic AI engagements does your employer run for banks today? | Part 1, 5.5.3 |
| Part 1 | Field: Bank Type | Field: Bank Type | Part 1, 5.1.1 |
| Part 1 | Field: Class of Work | Field: Class of Work | Part 1, 5.3.2 |
| Part 1 | Field: Engagement Age | Field: Engagement Age | Part 1, 1.1.2 |
| Part 1 | Field: Engagement Phase | Field: Engagement Phase | Part 1, 1.1.1 |
| Part 1 | Field: Headcount | Field: Headcount | Part 1, 5.6.1 |
| Part 1 | Field: Outsourcing Type | Field: Outsourcing Type | Part 1, 5.3.1 |
| Part 1 | Field: Use Case | Field: Use Case | Part 1, 5.3.3 |
| Part 1 | Measure: Cancellation | Measure: Cancellation | Part 1, 2.1.1 |
| Part 1 | Measure: Indicator Mean | Measure: Indicator Mean | Part 1, 4.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.1 |
| Part 1 | Measure: Satisfaction | Measure: Satisfaction | Part 1, 3.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.3 |
| Part 2 | C093 | Compared to 5 years ago, is my employer more or less prepared to manage outsourcing engagements? | Part 2, 4.8.1 |
| Part 2 | C094 | Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on. | Part 2, 2.1.1 |
| Part 2 | C095 | Rate how accessible the customer's data is to this engagement when and where the work requires it. | Part 2, 2.1.2 |
| Part 2 | C096 | Rate how well the customer's data is normalized, with consistent formats and definitions across source systems. | Part 2, 2.1.3 |
| Part 2 | C097 | Rate the maturity of the customer's data governance over the data this engagement uses. | Part 2, 2.1.4 |
| Part 2 | C098 | Rate how well the customer's legacy systems support the integration this engagement requires. | Part 2, 2.2.1 |
| Part 2 | C099 | Rate the readiness of the customer's technical infrastructure to support the agentic AI this engagement deploys. | Part 2, 2.2.2 |
| Part 2 | C100 | Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires. | Part 2, 2.3.1 |
| Part 2 | C101 | Rate the maturity of the customer's processes in scope, meaning how standardized and repeatable they are. | Part 2, 2.3.2 |
| Part 2 | C102 | Rate how consistently the customer performs the same processes across its business units and regions. | Part 2, 2.3.3 |
| Part 2 | C103 | Rate the customer's willingness to redesign processes for agentic AI rather than automate them as they are. | Part 2, 2.3.4 |
| Part 2 | C104 | Rate the agentic AI knowledge and skills of the customer staff working with this engagement. | Part 2, 2.4.2 |
| Part 2 | C105 | Rate the effectiveness of the customer's management of its side of this engagement. | Part 2, 2.5.1 |
| Part 2 | C106 | Rate the availability of the customer's subject matter experts when this engagement needs them. | Part 2, 2.4.3 |
| Part 2 | C107 | Rate the customer organization's readiness to absorb the changes to daily work that agentic AI introduces. | Part 2, 2.4.1 |
| Part 2 | C108 | Rate the customer's ability to provision the system access and identities that AI agents require. | Part 2, 2.7.1 |
| Part 2 | C109 | Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action. | Part 2, 2.5.2 |
| Part 2 | C110 | Rate how well the customer's change control process handles the changes this engagement requires. | Part 2, 2.6.3 |
| Part 2 | C111 | Rate the customer's capacity to govern and oversee the risks of AI agents doing this work. | Part 2, 2.6.2 |
| Part 2 | C112 | Rate how clearly ownership and accountability for AI are assigned inside the customer organization. | Part 2, 2.6.1 |
| Part 2 | C113 | Rate the stability of the customer's business case and ROI definition for this engagement. | Part 2, 2.8.1 |
| Part 2 | C115 | Rate the overall effectiveness of your employer's top leadership team. | Part 2, 4.1.1 |
| Part 2 | C116 | Rate how well your employer is transforming its commercial model as agentic AI reduces the billable human effort it sells today. | Part 2, 4.1.2 |
| Part 2 | C117 | Rate how well your employer's internal management processes have been redesigned for agentic AI delivery rather than traditional staffed delivery. | Part 2, 4.2.1 |
| Part 2 | C118 | Rate the effectiveness of your employer's process and leadership development programs. | Part 2, 4.5.2 |
| Part 2 | C119 | Rate your employer's ability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements end to end. | Part 2, 4.2.2 |
| Part 2 | C120 | Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of the financial industry. | Part 2, 4.3.1 |
| Part 2 | C121 | Rate your employer's ability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for global banks in particular. | Part 2, 4.2.3 |
| Part 2 | C122 | Rate your employer's current supply of qualified agentic AI talent against what its engagements need. | Part 2, 4.5.1 |
| Part 2 | C123 | Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce. | Part 2, 4.5.3 |
| Part 2 | C124 | Rate how well your employer's training programs build practical agentic AI skills. | Part 2, 4.5.4 |
| Part 2 | C125 | Rate how well your employer's training programs build financial industry knowledge. | Part 2, 4.5.5 |
| Part 2 | C126 | Rate the maturity of your employer's playbook for taking agentic use cases from concept to governed production. | Part 2, 4.6.1 |
| Part 2 | C127 | Rate your employer's quality assurance capability for agents whose outputs are not identical every run. | Part 2, 4.6.2 |
| Part 2 | C128 | Rate your employer's ability to price agentic work profitably when billable hours no longer measure the value delivered. | Part 2, 4.1.3 |
| Part 2 | C129 | Rate how well the technical platforms your employer builds or licenses are optimized for agentic AI outsourcing. | Part 2, 4.6.3 |
| Part 2 | C130 | Rate your employer's readiness to take accountability when an agent it operates makes a costly error. | Part 2, 4.7.1 |
| Part 2 | C131 | Rate the depth of your employer's knowledge of agentic AI. | Part 2, 4.3.2 |
| Part 2 | C132 | Rate the depth of your employer's experience running agentic AI systems in live production, beyond pilots. | Part 2, 4.4.1 |
| Part 2 | C133 | Rate your employer's ability to operate large numbers of agents in production, including monitoring and exception handling. | Part 2, 4.4.2 |
| Part 2 | C134 | Rate your employer's overall qualification to deliver elite agentic AI outsourcing services to banks. | Part 2, 4.2.4 |
| Part 2 | C136 | Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work. | Part 2, 3.1.1 |
| Part 2 | C137 | Rate how clearly the two firms have settled who decides what agents may do without human approval. | Part 2, 3.1.2 |
| Part 2 | C138 | Rate how clearly ownership of each workflow step is assigned when agents, vendor staff, and customer staff work in the same process. | Part 2, 3.1.3 |
| Part 2 | C139 | Rate how clearly accountability lands on one firm when an agent's action causes a problem in this engagement. | Part 2, 3.1.4 |
| Part 2 | C140 | Rate how well the two firms maintain a single shared view of the risks that agent work introduces. | Part 2, 3.2.1 |
| Part 2 | C141 | Rate how effectively the two firms manage issues arising from agent work as one team rather than through two separate processes. | Part 2, 3.2.2 |
| Part 2 | C142 | Rate how well the speed of joint issue resolution matches the speed at which agent-caused problems can spread. | Part 2, 3.2.3 |
| Part 2 | C143 | Rate how quickly the two firms together can stop an agent that is behaving badly in live operations. | Part 2, 3.2.4 |
| Part 2 | C144 | Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes. | Part 2, 3.3.1 |
| Part 2 | C145 | Rate how well agent updates made by one firm become visible to the other firm before they take effect. | Part 2, 3.3.2 |
| Part 2 | C146 | Rate how well the two firms jointly govern changes agents make to their own behavior between formal releases. | Part 2, 3.3.3 |
| Part 2 | C147 | Rate how well human review points are placed across the two firms at the moments where agent errors would matter most. | Part 2, 3.4.1 |
| Part 2 | C148 | Rate how well joint human review capacity keeps up with the volume of output the agents produce. | Part 2, 3.4.2 |
| Part 2 | C149 | Rate how much genuine scrutiny agent outputs receive at human review points rather than routine approval. | Part 2, 3.4.3 |
| Part 2 | C150 | Rate how reliably the joint quality assurance loop catches agent errors before they reach live operations. | Part 2, 3.4.4 |
| Part 2 | C151 | Rate how well the quality measures both firms use capture the kinds of errors agents actually make. | Part 2, 3.4.5 |
| Part 2 | C152 | Rate how fully each firm can see what the other firm's agents actually did when questions arise. | Part 2, 3.5.1 |
| Part 2 | C153 | Rate how closely the speed of joint decision making matches the speed at which the agents act. | Part 2, 3.5.2 |
| Part 2 | C154 | Rate how well today's joint governance model fits work performed by agents rather than work performed by people. | Part 2, 3.5.3 |
| Part 2 | C155 | Rate how ready the joint management model is for the level of agent autonomy you expect in this engagement within two years. | Part 2, 3.5.4 |
| Part 2 | C157 | Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review. | Part 2, 5.2.1 |
| Part 2 | C158 | Rate the accuracy of citations, references, and quotations the tools produced against the real sources. | Part 2, 5.2.2 |
| Part 2 | C159 | Rate the consistency of the tools' outputs when given the same input and instructions more than once. | Part 2, 5.2.3 |
| Part 2 | C160 | Rate the end-to-end reliability of the tools on multi-step tasks, from first step to finished output. | Part 2, 5.2.4 |
| Part 2 | C161 | Rate the predictability of the tools' token consumption for a given volume of work. | Part 2, 5.4.1 |
| Part 2 | C162 | Rate the efficiency of the tools' token use, considering retries, loops, and reprocessing needed to complete work. | Part 2, 5.4.2 |
| Part 2 | C163 | Rate how completely the tools kept each client's and each session's information isolated from every other client and session. | Part 2, 5.5.1 |
| Part 2 | C164 | Rate how reliably the tools retained instructions and constraints given earlier in long tasks and sessions. | Part 2, 5.3.1 |
| Part 2 | C165 | Rate how completely the tools captured material facts located anywhere in long documents, including mid-document content. | Part 2, 5.3.2 |
| Part 2 | C166 | Rate the integrity of the tools' persistent memory against contamination by incorrect or malicious content encountered during work. | Part 2, 5.3.3 |
| Part 2 | C167 | Rate the tools' resistance to hostile instructions embedded in the content they read and process. | Part 2, 5.5.3 |
| Part 2 | C168 | Rate how consistently the agents took only intended and authorized actions when operating connected tools and systems. | Part 2, 5.6.1 |
| Part 2 | C169 | Rate how safely the tools handled sensitive data, with no exposure through outputs, logs, or connected systems. | Part 2, 5.5.2 |
| Part 2 | C170 | Rate how reliably the tools' built-in guardrails and safety controls held during production use. | Part 2, 5.6.2 |
| Part 2 | C171 | Rate the overall production readiness of the AI tools for bank-grade work as experienced on this engagement. | Part 2, 5.1.1 |
| Part 2 | C172 | Rate how accurately the tools' own reports of success or failure matched the actual outcomes of their work. | Part 2, 5.8.1 |
| Part 2 | C173 | Rate the tools' ability to explain and evidence how each output was produced, at the depth an audit requires. | Part 2, 5.8.2 |
| Part 2 | C174 | Rate how well the tools supported reliable testing, meaning correct behavior could be proven before work went live. | Part 2, 5.7.1 |
| Part 2 | C175 | Rate the stability of the tools' behavior over the engagement when nothing changed on the engagement side. | Part 2, 5.7.2 |
| Part 2 | C176 | Rate the quality of the tools' logs, traces, and usage telemetry for detecting and diagnosing failures. | Part 2, 5.8.3 |
| Part 2 | C178 | Rate how well the agents on this engagement are protected from breaking silently when a third party changes something without warning. | Part 2, 6.2.1 |
| Part 2 | C179 | Rate the quality of the fallback the engagement has ready when a critical third-party feed, platform, or model stops working. | Part 2, 6.7.1 |
| Part 2 | C180 | Rate the security posture of the third-party tools, platforms, and sub-processors the engagement's agents connect to. | Part 2, 6.6.1 |
| Part 2 | C181 | Rate the quality of advance notice third-party providers give before changes that can affect the agents on this engagement. | Part 2, 6.1.1 |
| Part 2 | C182 | Rate how reliably word of an upcoming third-party change reaches the people who operate the affected agents in time to act. | Part 2, 6.1.2 |
| Part 2 | C183 | Rate the engagement's monitoring for unannounced changes in the third-party APIs, data feeds, and models its agents depend on. | Part 2, 6.2.2 |
| Part 2 | C184 | Rate how well the contracts with third-party providers deal with provider changes that can break the agents on this engagement. | Part 2, 6.4.1 |
| Part 2 | C185 | Rate how well the engagement absorbs model version deprecations and retirements forced by model providers. | Part 2, 6.3.2 |
| Part 2 | C186 | Rate the availability of true machine interfaces, rather than screens built for humans, across the third-party systems the agents must use. | Part 2, 6.5.1 |
| Part 2 | C187 | Rate the stability of the third-party APIs and data structures the agents depend on, from one provider release to the next. | Part 2, 6.3.1 |
| Part 2 | C188 | Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup. | Part 2, 6.5.2 |
| Part 2 | C189 | Rate how well third-party rate limits and quotas hold up under the volume the agents on this engagement generate. | Part 2, 6.5.3 |
| Part 2 | C190 | Rate the engagement's ability to still perform by hand the manual workarounds that once absorbed third-party quirks and breakage. | Part 2, 6.7.2 |
| Part 2 | C191 | Rate how completely the engagement knows where humans used to quietly fix third-party data and interface problems before agents took over. | Part 2, 6.7.3 |
| Part 2 | C192 | Rate how deliberately the quiet human fixes for third-party quirks were replaced with explicit checks when agents took over the work. | Part 2, 6.7.4 |
| Part 2 | C193 | Rate how well the engagement manages its dependence on a small number of model and cloud providers. | Part 2, 6.6.2 |
| Part 2 | C194 | Rate how well this engagement could keep operating if it had to switch its primary model or cloud provider. | Part 2, 6.6.3 |
| Part 2 | C195 | Rate how well third-party licenses on this engagement cover work done by agents rather than named human users. | Part 2, 6.4.2 |
| Part 2 | C196 | Rate how completely the engagement has mapped every third and fourth party its agents depend on, down the full chain. | Part 2, 6.8.1 |
| Part 2 | C197 | Rate how well the engagement manages agent dependence on gated external rails such as payment networks and regulatory submission systems. | Part 2, 6.8.2 |
| Part 4 | Analysis: Experience by Intent | Analysis: Experience by Intent | Part 4, 6.1.1 |
| Part 4 | C005 | What is your role on this engagement? | Part 4, 1.1.1 |
| Part 4 | C007 | How many years of experience do you have in your career? | Part 4, 1.2.1 |
| Part 4 | C008 | How many years of experience do you have with agentic AI? | Part 4, 1.3.1 |
| Part 4 | C009 | How many years have you been working in the outsourcing industry? | Part 4, 1.2.2 |
| Part 4 | C010 | How many years have you been working within the financial industry? | Part 4, 1.2.3 |
| Part 4 | C011 | How many agentic AI outsourcing engagements have you worked on across your career, including this one? | Part 4, 1.3.2 |
| Part 4 | C012 | How well do you know the financial industry? | Part 4, 1.4.1 |
| Part 4 | C013 | How well do you know agentic AI specific to the financial industry? | Part 4, 1.4.2 |
| Part 4 | C014 | Rate your overall agentic AI expertise. | Part 4, 1.4.3 |
| Part 4 | C015 | What professional certifications do you have? | Part 4, 1.5.1 |
| Part 4 | C016 | What AI certifications do you have? | Part 4, 1.5.2 |
| Part 4 | C017 | Where did you gain your AI knowledge? | Part 4, 1.5.3 |
| Part 4 | C018 | How happy are you with your current job? | Part 4, 3.1.1 |
| Part 4 | C019 | How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months? | Part 4, 5.1.1; Introduction, 4.5.4 |
| Part 4 | C020 | How happy is your extended team with the current engagement? | Part 4, 3.1.2 |
| Part 4 | C021 | How likely are members of your current team to leave their jobs in the next 12 months? | Part 4, 5.1.2 |
| Part 4 | C022 | Compared to 5 years ago, I am happier with the work I am doing now. | Part 4, 3.2.1 |
| Part 4 | C023 | Compared to 5 years ago, I am more likely to seek a new job. | Part 4, 5.2.1 |
| Part 4 | C024 | Compared to 5 years ago, the team I work with seems to be happier. | Part 4, 3.2.2 |
| Part 4 | C025 | Compared to 5 years ago, the team I work with is more likely to seek a new job. | Part 4, 5.2.2 |
| Part 4 | C026 | I want to continue working on projects in the global financial industry. | Part 4, 5.3.1 |
| Part 4 | C027 | I would prefer to work directly for a bank in one of their global capability centers. | Part 4, 5.3.2 |
| Part 4 | C028 | Working directly for a bank would be better than working for an outsourcing vendor. | Part 4, 5.3.3 |
| Part 4 | C069 | I trust the customer. | Part 4, 4.1.1 |
| Part 4 | C070 | The customer knows and cares about me. | Part 4, 4.1.2 |
| Part 4 | C071 | I talk with peers inside the customer regularly. | Part 4, 4.2.1 |
| Part 4 | C072 | I talk with engagement management inside the customer regularly. | Part 4, 4.2.2 |
| Part 4 | C073 | I talk with the customer's leadership team regularly. | Part 4, 4.2.3 |
| Part 4 | C074 | I know how the customer feels about my team. | Part 4, 4.1.3 |
| Part 4 | C075 | I know how the customer feels about the engagement I am on. | Part 4, 4.1.4 |
| Part 4 | C080 | My manager is effective. | Part 4, 2.1.1 |
| Part 4 | C081 | My manager knows the financial industry well. | Part 4, 2.1.2 |
| Part 4 | C082 | My manager knows agentic AI well. | Part 4, 2.1.3 |
| Part 4 | C083 | My manager cares about me. | Part 4, 4.3.1 |
| Part 4 | C084 | My manager cares about the larger team. | Part 4, 4.3.2 |
| Part 4 | C085 | My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements. | Part 4, 2.1.4 |
| Part 4 | C086 | My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for global banks. | Part 4, 2.1.5 |
| Part 4 | C087 | My employer cares about me. | Part 4, 4.4.1 |
| Part 4 | C088 | My employer cares about the team. | Part 4, 4.4.2 |
| Part 4 | C089 | My employer's top leadership team cares about my wellbeing and development. | Part 4, 4.4.3 |
| Part 4 | C090 | I trust my employer. | Part 4, 4.4.4 |
| Part 4 | C091 | I trust my manager. | Part 4, 4.3.3 |
| Part 4 | C092 | I am being used effectively by my employer. | Part 4, 4.4.5 |
| Part 4 | Field: CME Respondents | Field: CME Respondents | Part 4, 1.1.1 |
| Part 4 | Field: IC Respondents | Field: IC Respondents | Part 4, 1.1.1 |
| Part 4 | Field: PD Respondents | Field: PD Respondents | Part 4, 1.1.1 |
| Part 4 | Field: Total Respondents | Field: Total Respondents | Part 4, 1.1.1 |
| Part 5 | Analysis: Alterations by Role | Analysis: Alterations by Role | Part 5, 2.1.1 |
| Part 5 | Analysis: Manager Alterations | Analysis: Manager Alterations | Part 5, 2.2.1 |
| Part 5 | C052 | The dashboard and performance reports given to the customer are accurate. | Part 5, 1.4.1 |
| Part 5 | C053 | The vendor manipulates the dashboard and performance reports given to the customer. | Part 5, 1.4.2 |
| Part 5 | C054 | Compared to 5 years ago, is manipulation of the dashboards and performance reports given to the customer more or less common now? | Part 5, 1.4.3 |
| Part 5 | C057 | I fully understand how these laws, regulations, and similar affect the outsourcing engagement. | Part 5, 7.1.1 |
| Part 5 | C058 | My management team fully understands these laws, regulations, and similar, and how they affect the engagement. | Part 5, 7.1.2 |
| Part 5 | C059 | The customer's team actively discusses these laws, regulations, and similar with our team. | Part 5, 7.2.1 |
| Part 5 | C060 | The training available to me effectively teaches me about these laws, regulations, and similar. | Part 5, 7.3.1 |
| Part 5 | C199 | I have altered client-provided data | Part 5, 1.1.1 |
| Part 5 | C200 | I discussed the data alteration with internal management | Part 5, 4.1.1 |
| Part 5 | C201 | I or my management discussed data alteration with the client | Part 5, 4.2.1 |
| Part 5 | C203 | My greater team regularly alters client provided data. | Part 5, 1.1.2 |
| Part 5 | C205 | I have altered client processes | Part 5, 1.2.1 |
| Part 5 | C206 | I discussed the process alteration with internal management | Part 5, 4.1.2 |
| Part 5 | C207 | I or my management discussed process alteration with the client | Part 5, 4.2.2 |
| Part 5 | C209 | My greater team regularly alters client processes. | Part 5, 1.2.2 |
| Part 5 | C211 | I have altered AI outputs | Part 5, 1.3.1 |
| Part 5 | C212 | I discussed the AI output alteration with internal management | Part 5, 4.1.3 |
| Part 5 | C213 | I or my management discussed AI output alteration with the client | Part 5, 4.2.3 |
| Part 5 | C215 | My greater team regularly alters AI outputs. | Part 5, 1.3.2 |

← Appendix D: MethodAppendix F: Index →