Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-analysis-active-engagements/ Author: Phil Hatch Publisher: Akholi The three remaining measures among the engagements not canceled: 94 active engagements Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis # The three remaining measures among the engagements not canceled: 94 active engagements Indicator ANALYSIS:active_engagements · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026 ← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator → ## On this page 20 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsAnalysis ResultsDistribution of Recorded ValuesDescriptive Statistics by SegmentTests of Difference Between SegmentsAssociation with Cancellation RateAssociation with Customer SatisfactionAssociation with the Engagement Indicator MeanAssociation with Intent to LeaveComparison of Associations Across the Four MeasuresClustering and Effective Sample SizeEquivalence Tests of Null ResultsRobustness ChecksMeasure Independence and Part-Whole CorrectionComparison with the Study NormInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance ## Indicator Specification Table 1. Indicator specificationTable | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Indicator code | None, a derived analysis | | Question as asked | The three remaining measures among the engagements not canceled: 94 active engagements | | Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators | | Place in the survey | Not a survey item | | Indicator class | Derived from other indicators | | Indicator type | Derived analysis | | Response scale | Not applicable, a derived analysis | | Answering base | As stated in Analysis Results | | Non-answers | Not applicable | ## Summary of Findings The three remaining measures moved together on the 94 active engagements. Higher customer satisfaction came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.89). Customer satisfaction fell as intent to leave rose (r = −0.73, 95% CI −0.81 to −0.62). A higher engagement indicator mean came with lower intent to leave (r = −0.69, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.57). Cancellation likelihood, as respondents rated it, rose as customer satisfaction fell (r = −0.66, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.52). Of the 94 rated active engagements, 19 were at high and 39 at moderate cancellation likelihood. ## Analysis Results The figures in this section were computed for the study and placed by code from the statistics record. Table 2. Analysis resultsTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Unit of analysis | Engagement | | Active engagements | 94 | Pairs of measures. Table 3a. Analysis results: pairs of measures, part 1 of 2Table | Measures | n | r | R squared | 95% CI | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | 94 | 0.84 | 0.71 | 0.77 to 0.89 | | Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 94 | −0.73 | 0.54 | −0.81 to −0.62 | | Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 94 | −0.69 | 0.48 | −0.78 to −0.57 | | Cancellation likelihood (C039) and customer satisfaction | 94 | −0.66 | 0.43 | −0.76 to −0.52 | Table 3b. Analysis results: pairs of measures, part 2 of 2Table | Measures | t | df | p | TOST p | Equivalent to zero | Power at the observed effect | Smallest detectable r (MDE) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | 14.95 | 92 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 1.00 | 0.29 | | Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | −10.32 | 92 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 1.00 | 0.29 | | Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | −9.13 | 92 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 1.00 | 0.29 | | Cancellation likelihood (C039) and customer satisfaction | −8.35 | 92 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 1.00 | 0.29 | Cancellation likelihood among active engagements (C039). Table 4. Analysis results: cancellation likelihood among active engagements (C039)Table | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Rule | a | | Active engagements rated | 94 | | High risk | 19 | | Moderate risk | 39 | | Low risk | 36 | | Active engagements not rated | 0 | | Canceled or at risk | 114 | | Canceled or at risk, share | 76.00% of 150 | Note: a WS-09: engagement mean of C039 among active engagements, high 7 or above, moderate 5 to below 7. ## Distribution of Recorded Values This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the response distribution of each input. ## Descriptive Statistics by Segment This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the segment breakdown of each input. ## Tests of Difference Between Segments This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the tests across segments for each input. ## Association with Cancellation Rate This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with Customer Satisfaction This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Association with Intent to Leave This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's association with this measure. ## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's comparison across the four measures. ## Clustering and Effective Sample Size This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry the clustering of each input. ## Equivalence Tests of Null Results This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's equivalence test. ## Robustness Checks This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's robustness checks. ## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's identity check. ## Comparison with the Study Norm This block is a derived analysis. Its own results are in Analysis Results. The blocks of its input indicators carry each input's profile. ## Interpretation of the Data Canceled or at risk engagements numbered 114 in all (76.00% of 150). Customer satisfaction and the engagement indicator mean overlapped most among the active engagements (R squared 0.71). ## Limitations The evidence is reported experience: what the delivery team said about its own engagement, gathered in one cross-section. The figures showed associations, not causes. Indicators about the financial institution were reported at second hand by vendor staff. Cancellation is a descriptive contrast, because canceled engagements were rated after they ended. Cancellation likelihood on active engagements came from respondents' ratings on C039 under the rule printed in Analysis Results, so the at-risk count reflected what vendor staff expected rather than cancellations that occurred. ## Definitions Table 5. DefinitionsTable | Term | Definition | | --- | --- | | Indicator class | Derived from other indicators: computed by the study from other recorded fields, as Analysis Results sets out. | | Failure category | One of the five failure categories of the Study Taxonomy, section 3. Only the 100 rated indicators carry one, and the indicator is not among them. | | Direction | Each result is read in the direction of the measure it reports. | | Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings. | ## Sources and Provenance Table 6. Sources and provenanceTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Study data | Study Data.xlsx, sha256 219eba0457274d04 | | Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b | | Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record ANALYSIS:active_engagements, sha256 e405f65a43e37a6e | | Computed | October 8, 2026, 01:38 UTC | | Template | Indicator Statistical Analysis Template, version 1.1 of 2026-10-06 | | Figures placed by script | 72 of 72 | ## Links to related study evidence - [Part 1](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-1-engagement-outcomes/) - [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/) - [C039](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c039/) - [part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)