Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-analysis-indicator-mean-quintiles/ Author: Phil Hatch Publisher: Akholi The four study measures by engagement indicator mean quintile: 150 engagements in five bands of 30 Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis # The four study measures by engagement indicator mean quintile: 150 engagements in five bands of 30 Indicator ANALYSIS:indicator_mean_quintiles · 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 four study measures by engagement indicator mean quintile: 150 engagements in five bands of 30 | | 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 Every study measure moved in order across the five engagement indicator mean quintiles set by the rule printed in Analysis Results. Cancellation fell across the quintiles (rho −0.73, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), from the lowest quintile (93.33% of 30) to the top quintile (0.00% of 30). Customer satisfaction rose from the lowest quintile (13.0, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (75.8, n = 30 engagements), and the quintiles differed under test (F 84.65, p < 0.001). The engagement indicator mean rose from the lowest quintile (2.2, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (6.2, n = 30 engagements) by construction. Intent to leave fell from the lowest quintile (9.1, n = 30 engagements) to the top quintile (3.8, n = 30 engagements), and the quintiles differed under test (F 76.29, p < 0.001). The share of indicators rated distressed fell from the lowest quintile (82.66%, mean of 30 engagements) to the top quintile (4.91%, mean of 30 engagements). ## 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 | | Rule | RI-063: five bands of 30 by engagement indicator mean, ties broken by engagement id | The five quintiles. Table 3. Analysis results: the five indicator quintilesTable | Quintile | n | Engagement indicator mean | Indicator mean range | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Customer satisfaction, mean | Intent to leave, mean | Indicators distressed, mean share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | 30 | 2.2 | 1.2 to 2.5 | 28 | 93.33% of 30 | 13.0 | 9.1 | 82.66%, mean of 30 engagements | | 2 | 30 | 3.0 | 2.5 to 3.4 | 19 | 63.33% of 30 | 24.3 | 8.5 | 63.77%, mean of 30 engagements | | 3 | 30 | 3.8 | 3.4 to 4.4 | 9 | 30.00% of 30 | 43.0 | 7.0 | 42.89%, mean of 30 engagements | | 4 | 30 | 4.9 | 4.4 to 5.5 | 0 | 0.00% of 30 | 63.2 | 5.4 | 18.22%, mean of 30 engagements | | 5 | 30 | 6.2 | 5.5 to 7.3 | 0 | 0.00% of 30 | 75.8 | 3.8 | 4.91%, mean of 30 engagements | Tests across the quintiles, cancellation by quintile, chi-square test. Table 4. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, cancellation by indicator quintile, chi-square testTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Chi-square | 85.32 | | df | 4 | | p | < 0.001 | | n | 150 | | Smallest expected count | 11.2 | Tests across the quintiles, customer satisfaction by quintile, analysis of variance. Table 5. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, customer satisfaction by indicator quintile, analysis of varianceTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | n | 150 | | Quintiles | 5 | | F | 84.65 | | df, between quintiles | 4 | | df, within quintiles | 145 | | p | < 0.001 | | Omega squared | 0.690 | | Omega squared 90% CI | 0.627 to 0.741 | | Equivalence p | 1.000 | | Equivalent to zero | No | | Power at the observed effect | 1.00 | | Smallest detectable omega squared (MDE) | 0.076 | Tests across the quintiles, intent to leave by quintile, analysis of variance. Table 6. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, intent to leave by indicator quintile, analysis of varianceTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | n | 150 | | Quintiles | 5 | | F | 76.29 | | df, between quintiles | 4 | | df, within quintiles | 145 | | p | < 0.001 | | Omega squared | 0.668 | | Omega squared 90% CI | 0.600 to 0.722 | | Equivalence p | 1.000 | | Equivalent to zero | No | | Power at the observed effect | 1.00 | | Smallest detectable omega squared (MDE) | 0.076 | Tests across the quintiles, cancellation against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation. Table 7. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, cancellation against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Spearman rho | −0.73 | | p | < 0.001 | | n | 150 | Tests across the quintiles, customer satisfaction against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation. Table 8. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, customer satisfaction against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Spearman rho | 0.84 | | p | < 0.001 | | n | 150 | Tests across the quintiles, engagement indicator mean against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation. Table 9. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, engagement indicator mean against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Spearman rho | 0.98 | | p | < 0.001 | | n | 150 | Tests across the quintiles, intent to leave against quintile number, Spearman rank correlation. Table 10. Analysis results: tests across the indicator quintiles, intent to leave against indicator quintile number, Spearman rank correlationTable | Item | Value | | --- | --- | | Spearman rho | −0.80 | | p | < 0.001 | | n | 150 | ## 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 Customer satisfaction separated the quintiles most widely (omega squared 0.690), and intent to leave separated them almost as widely (omega squared 0.668). Cancellation fell from the lowest quintile (93.33% of 30) to the middle quintile (30.00% of 30), and no engagement in the top two quintiles was canceled (0.00% of 30 in each). ## 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. The ordering of the engagement indicator mean across the quintiles followed from the quintile rule itself (rho 0.98, p < 0.001). ## Definitions Table 11. 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 12. 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:indicator_mean_quintiles, 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 | 121 of 121 | ## Links to related study evidence - [Part 1](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-1-engagement-outcomes/) - [engagement indicator mean](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-engagement-indicator-mean/) - [Customer satisfaction](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-measure-customer-satisfaction/) - [Intent to leave](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)