Source: https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c050/
Author: Phil Hatch
Publisher: Akholi

The engagement is within budget

Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

# The engagement is within budget

Indicator C050 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data← Previous indicatorNext indicator →

## On this page

22 sectionsIndicator SpecificationSummary of FindingsDistribution of RatingsCoverage and Origin of Written ResponsesDistribution of Written SentimentDescriptive 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 NormCo-Occurring Indicators and ThemesInterpretation of the DataLimitationsDefinitionsSources and Provenance

## Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Indicator code | C050 |
| Question as asked | The engagement is within budget. |
| Failure category | Not one of the 100 rated indicators |
| Place in the survey | Engagement Details > 2.5 Performance and Delivery > Delivery Health |
| Indicator class | Respondent level |
| Indicator type | Rated, POS |
| Response scale | 1 to 10, higher is the better outcome |
| Answering base | 554 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements |
| Non-answers | I do not know 242, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 54 |
| Written responses coded to the indicator | 7 responses from 7 respondents on 7 engagements (1 primary, 6 secondary) |

## Summary of Findings

Table 2. Key results: association of the indicator with the four study measuresTable

| Measure | Form | n | r | 95% CI | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | 150 engagements | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.42 | < 0.001 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | 94 engagements | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | 150 engagements | 0.76 | 0.69 to 0.82 | < 0.001 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | 522 respondents | −0.56 | −0.63 to −0.49 | < 0.001 |

Distressed ratings on staying within budget came from a minority of answers (151 of 554 answers, 27.26%) and a minority of engagement means (31 of 150 engagements). Engagements whose respondents rated budget performance lower were canceled more often (r = −0.54, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.42, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Higher within-budget ratings came with higher customer satisfaction on active engagements (r = 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p < 0.001, n = 94 active engagements). Within-budget ratings rose with the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Respondents who rated budget performance lower reported higher intent to leave (r = −0.56, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.63 to −0.49, p < 0.001, n = 522 respondents). Ratings differed after Holm control by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 22.99, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.280) and by respondent role (Welch F 7.22, Holm p 0.008, omega squared 0.015).

The indicator had 7 written responses coded to it, from 7 of 850 respondents on 7 of 150 engagements. All 7 scored responses were negative. No response carried the strongest negative score, −10. Secondary responses, written in answer to questions outside the indicator's own survey section, numbered 6 of the 7 responses. The rating of respondents who wrote was not compared with that of respondents who did not, because 7 respondents wrote, fewer than 10.

## Distribution of Ratings

Table 3. Distribution of ratings, respondent levelTable

| Answer | Respondents | Share of answered (base 554) | Cumulative share | Engagements with at least one | Share of 150 engagements | Distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 39 | 7.04% | 7.04% | 31 | 20.67% | Yes |
| 2 | 48 | 8.66% | 15.70% | 37 | 24.67% | Yes |
| 3 | 64 | 11.55% | 27.26% | 54 | 36.00% | Yes |
| 4 | 83 | 14.98% | 42.24% | 62 | 41.33% | No |
| 5 | 93 | 16.79% | 59.03% | 66 | 44.00% | No |
| 6 | 80 | 14.44% | 73.47% | 57 | 38.00% | No |
| 7 | 75 | 13.54% | 87.00% | 53 | 35.33% | No |
| 8 | 47 | 8.48% | 95.49% | 36 | 24.00% | No |
| 9 | 19 | 3.43% | 98.92% | 18 | 12.00% | No |
| 10 | 6 | 1.08% | 100.00% | 3 | 2.00% | No |
| I do not know | 242 | Not in base | Not in base | 127 | 84.67% | Not applicable |
| I prefer to not answer | 0 | Not in base | Not in base | 0 | 0.00% | Not applicable |
| Answered, total | 554 | 100.00% | | 150 | 100.00% | |

Table 4. Distribution of ratings, engagement levelTable

| Engagement level summary | Engagements | Mean of engagement means | SD | Min | Median | Max | Engagements with a distressed mean | Share of engagements distressed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement means, goodness view | 150 | 4.9 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 31 | 20.67% |

The study set mean was 4.9 on 554 answering respondents, with a median of 5.0. 151 answers, 27.26% of the 554, were at the distressed end. A distressed engagement mean was recorded in 31 of 150 engagements.

## Coverage and Origin of Written Responses

Figure 1. Written responses coded to the indicator, by the question answered and by written score (n = 7 responses)ExhibitNote: Primary responses were written in answer to a written-answer question in the indicator's own survey section. Secondary responses were written in answer to a question outside that section and coded to the indicator because their content addressed it. Segments run from −10, strongly negative, in full amber at the left to +10, strongly positive, in the darkest gray at the right. Segments of 3 or more responses are labeled with their count where the drawn segment can hold the label. C055 asked: “How does the vendor manipulate performance reports and dashboards?” C135 asked: “Add any comments on your employer that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C156 asked: “Add any comments on the joint management of this engagement that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C177 asked: “Add any comments on the agentic AI tools that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C198 asked: “Add any comments on the third-party ecosystem that the ratings in this section do not capture.” C216 asked: “Comment.”
Table 5. Written responses by originTable

| Origin | Responses | Respondents | Engagements | Negative | Strongest negative (−10) | Positive | Mean written score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Primary | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 | 0 of 1 | 0 of 1 | ‡ |
| Secondary | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 of 6 | 0 of 6 | 0 of 6 | ‡ |
| All responses | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 of 7 | 0 of 7 | 0 of 7 | ‡ |

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

Of the 7 responses, 1 was primary and 6 were secondary. The secondary responses came from 6 respondents on 6 engagements, in answer to 5 questions outside the indicator's own survey section (most often C135 with 2 responses and 4 questions with 1 response each). No respondent wrote both a primary and a secondary response.

## Distribution of Written Sentiment

Figure 2. Distribution of written sentiment (n = 7 scored responses)ExhibitNote: Column height is the count of scored responses. With fewer than 10 scored responses, labels give counts only.

The distribution was reported as counts only, because fewer than 10 responses carried a score. Of the 7 scored responses, all were negative and none carried the strongest negative score.

## Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 6a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Base | Answered | Answer rate | Engagements | Mean | 95% CI | SD |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 850 | 554 | 65.18% of 850 | 150 | 4.9 | 4.8 to 5.1 | 2.2 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 232 | 149 | 64.22% of 232 | 42 | 5.2 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 2.2 |
| ITO | 244 | 162 | 66.39% of 244 | 40 | 4.9 | 4.6 to 5.2 | 2.0 |
| BPO | 209 | 138 | 66.03% of 209 | 37 | 4.5 | 4.1 to 4.9 | 2.2 |
| KPO | 165 | 105 | 63.64% of 165 | 31 | 5.2 | 4.7 to 5.6 | 2.4 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 132 | 78 | 59.09% of 132 | 24 | 5.3 | 4.8 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 140 | 90 | 64.29% of 140 | 23 | 4.8 | 4.4 to 5.3 | 2.3 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 105 | 71 | 67.62% of 105 | 19 | 4.5 | 4.1 to 5.0 | 2.1 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 78 | 54 | 69.23% of 78 | 14 | 4.9 | 4.3 to 5.5 | 2.1 |
| Commercial and business banking | 82 | 56 | 68.29% of 82 | 13 | 5.6 | 5.0 to 6.2 | 2.3 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 71 | 45 | 63.38% of 71 | 13 | 4.7 | 4.0 to 5.4 | 2.3 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 73 | 47 | 64.38% of 73 | 12 | 4.6 | 3.9 to 5.2 | 2.2 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 73 | 46 | 63.01% of 73 | 12 | 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.3 | 2.0 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 57 | 39 | 68.42% of 57 | 11 | 5.1 | 4.4 to 5.7 | 1.9 |
| Private equity and private capital | 39 | 28 | 71.79% of 39 | 9 | 5.0 | † | 2.3 |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 248 | 154 | 62.10% of 248 | 47 | 4.9 | 4.6 to 5.2 | 2.1 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 204 | 132 | 64.71% of 204 | 35 | 5.3 | 5.0 to 5.7 | 2.1 |
| Client servicing and communications | 94 | 62 | 65.96% of 94 | 16 | 4.4 | 3.8 to 5.1 | 2.5 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 80 | 52 | 65.00% of 80 | 15 | 4.7 | 4.2 to 5.3 | 1.9 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 73 | 49 | 67.12% of 73 | 12 | 5.2 | 4.6 to 5.8 | 2.1 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 57 | 40 | 70.18% of 57 | 9 | 5.9 | 5.0 to 6.7 | 2.7 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 51 | 32 | 62.75% of 51 | 9 | 4.5 | 3.7 to 5.2 | 2.0 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 43 | 33 | 76.74% of 43 | 7 | 3.9 | 3.2 to 4.6 | 1.9 |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 451 | 301 | 66.74% of 451 | 76 | 4.9 | 4.6 to 5.1 | 2.3 |
| Corporate Functional | 399 | 253 | 63.41% of 399 | 74 | 5.0 | 4.8 to 5.3 | 2.1 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 175 | 117 | 66.86% of 175 | 31 | 5.7 | 5.4 to 6.1 | 1.8 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 250 | 164 | 65.60% of 250 | 43 | 5.6 | 5.3 to 5.9 | 2.0 |
| Active, Production | 103 | 70 | 67.96% of 103 | 20 | 6.0 | 5.5 to 6.5 | 2.1 |
| Canceled | 322 | 203 | 63.04% of 322 | 56 | 3.6 | 3.4 to 3.9 | 1.9 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 667 | 375 | 56.22% of 667 | 145 | 4.8 | 4.6 to 5.0 | 2.2 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | 150 | 100.00% of 150 | 150 | 5.1 | 4.8 to 5.4 | 2.1 |
| Portfolio Director | 31 | 28 | 90.32% of 31 | 28 | 6.1 | † | 1.7 |
| Customer Management Executive | 2 | 1 | 1 of 2 | 1 | ‡ | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 316 | 209 | 66.14% of 316 | 59 | 5.0 | 4.7 to 5.2 | 2.0 |
| BPO specialist | 198 | 125 | 63.13% of 198 | 37 | 4.5 | 4.1 to 4.9 | 2.2 |
| Consulting firm | 117 | 80 | 68.38% of 117 | 23 | 5.4 | 4.9 to 6.0 | 2.5 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 87 | 56 | 64.37% of 87 | 17 | 5.3 | 4.7 to 5.9 | 2.2 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 75 | 54 | 72.00% of 75 | 14 | 5.1 | 4.5 to 5.6 | 2.0 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 57 | 30 | 52.63% of 57 | 27 | 4.4 | 3.6 to 5.2 | 2.2 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 6b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Min | Q1 | Median | Q3 | Max | Distressed n | Distressed % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 151 | 27.26% |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 35 | 23.49% |
| ITO | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 39 | 24.07% |
| BPO | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 52 | 37.68% |
| KPO | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 25 | 23.81% |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 14 | 17.95% |
| Wealth management and private banking | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 28 | 31.11% |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 22 | 30.99% |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 9.0 | 13 | 24.07% |
| Commercial and business banking | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 12 | 21.43% |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 15 | 33.33% |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 16 | 34.04% |
| Retail and consumer banking | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 13 | 28.26% |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 1.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 10 | 25.64% |
| Private equity and private capital | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 8 | 28.57% |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 40 | 25.97% |
| Technology engineering and operations | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 26 | 19.70% |
| Client servicing and communications | 1.0 | 2.3 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 22 | 35.48% |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 16 | 30.77% |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 11 | 22.45% |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 1.0 | 3.0 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 10.0 | 11 | 27.50% |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 10 | 31.25% |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 15 | 45.45% |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 92 | 30.56% |
| Corporate Functional | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 59 | 23.32% |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 12 | 10.26% |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 27 | 16.46% |
| Active, Production | 1.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.8 | 10.0 | 11 | 15.71% |
| Canceled | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 101 | 49.75% |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 115 | 30.67% |
| Engagement Manager | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 35 | 23.33% |
| Portfolio Director | 1.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.3 | 9.0 | 1 | 3.57% |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 1 | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 50 | 23.92% |
| BPO specialist | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 49 | 39.20% |
| Consulting firm | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 18 | 22.50% |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 10 | 17.86% |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 1.0 | 3.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 14 | 25.93% |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 10 | 33.33% |

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

Figures are respondent level. Means are on the goodness view. A level under 30 prints no interval and a level under 10 prints counts only.

## Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 7a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment family | Welch F | df | p | Holm p | Omega squared | 90% CI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 0.89 | 3, 78.7 | 0.451 | 1.000 | −0.001 | 0.000 to 0.052 |
| Institution type | 0.40 | 8, 49.4 | 0.915 | 1.000 | −0.033 | 0.000 to 0.015 |
| Process family | 0.80 | 4, 39.7 | 0.532 | 1.000 | −0.005 | 0.000 to 0.060 |
| Class of work | 0.25 | 1, 147.9 | 0.616 | 1.000 | −0.005 | 0.000 to 0.029 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 22.99 | 3, 59.0 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.280 | 0.186 to 0.376 |
| Respondent role | 7.22 | 2, 75.9 | 0.001 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.003 to 0.039 |
| Vendor type | 2.43 | 5, 150.5 | 0.038 | 0.188 | 0.015 | 0.002 to 0.041 |

Table 7b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment family | Kruskal-Wallis H | p | Distressed chi-square | df | p | Cramer's V | Levels left out |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Outsourcing model | 2.82 | 0.420 | 6.40 | 3 | 0.094 | 0.21 | None |
| Institution type | 3.06 | 0.931 | 7.75 | 8 | 0.469, simulated | 0.23 | a |
| Process family | 3.88 | 0.423 | 1.86 | 4 | 0.776, simulated | 0.12 | b |
| Class of work | 0.60 | 0.440 | 0.86 | 1 | 0.355 | 0.08 | None |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | 43.09 | < 0.001 | 23.50 | 3 | < 0.001, simulated | 0.40 | None |
| Respondent role | 10.54 | 0.005 | 11.27 | 2 | 0.004 | 0.14 | c |
| Vendor type | 13.30 | 0.021 | 14.18 | 5 | 0.015 | 0.16 | None |

Note: a Private equity and private capital, n = 9. b Credit, underwriting and suitability, n = 9, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal, n = 9, Financial crime and client onboarding, n = 7. c Customer Management Executive, n = 1.

Engagement families were tested on engagement means, and respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. A distressed p marked exact is a Fisher exact test for a two by two table, and one marked simulated is a Monte Carlo test run until its p is stable to the third decimal, both used where an expected count is under 5. Engagement status and lifecycle stage differed after Holm control (Welch F 22.99, Holm p < 0.001, tested on engagement means). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Active, Production had the highest mean, 6.0 (n = 70 respondents), and Canceled the lowest, 3.6 (n = 203 respondents). Respondent role differed after Holm control (Welch F 7.22, Holm p 0.008, tested on respondents). In Descriptive Statistics by Segment, Portfolio Director had the highest mean, 6.1 (n = 28 respondents), and Individual Contributor the lowest, 4.8 (n = 375 respondents). No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type.

## Association with Cancellation Rate

The share of engagements canceled on the study date, measured at engagement level (base 150 engagements, 56 canceled). The association is a descriptive contrast, inflated because canceled engagements were rated after cancellation, and is not predictive.

Table 8a. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Canceled | Cancellation rate | Point-biserial r | 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 56 | 37.33% of 150 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.42 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 15 | 35.71% of 42 | −0.52 | −0.71 to −0.26 | < 0.001 | 0.005 |
| ITO | 40 | 15 | 37.50% of 40 | −0.55 | −0.73 to −0.29 | < 0.001 | 0.003 |
| BPO | 37 | 14 | 37.84% of 37 | −0.63 | −0.79 to −0.38 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 12 | 38.71% of 31 | −0.48 | −0.71 to −0.15 | 0.007 | 0.073 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 13 | 54.17% of 24 | −0.45 | † | 0.029 | 0.173 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 8 | 34.78% of 23 | −0.72 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 9 | 47.37% of 19 | −0.57 | † | 0.011 | 0.108 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 5 | 35.71% of 14 | −0.33 | † | 0.247 | 0.495 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 4 | 30.77% of 13 | −0.49 | † | 0.090 | 0.319 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 3 | 23.08% of 13 | −0.34 | † | 0.255 | 0.495 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 5 | 41.67% of 12 | −0.64 | † | 0.024 | 0.166 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 4 | 33.33% of 12 | −0.87 | † | < 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 3 | 27.27% of 11 | −0.69 | † | 0.019 | 0.156 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | 2 | 2 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 19 | 40.43% of 47 | −0.45 | −0.65 to −0.19 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 10 | 28.57% of 35 | −0.65 | −0.81 to −0.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 9 | 56.25% of 16 | −0.58 | † | 0.017 | 0.156 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 8 | 53.33% of 15 | −0.51 | † | 0.050 | 0.250 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 2 | 16.67% of 12 | −0.52 | † | 0.080 | 0.319 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | 1 | 1 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | 4 | 4 of 9 | ‡ | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | 3 | 3 of 7 | ‡ | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 30 | 39.47% of 76 | −0.50 | −0.65 to −0.31 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 26 | 35.14% of 74 | −0.58 | −0.71 to −0.41 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0 | 0.00% of 31 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0 | 0.00% of 43 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0 | 0.00% of 20 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | 56 | 56 | 100.00% of 56 | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 8b. Association with cancellation rate by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Odds ratio per point | 95% CI | AUC | Rate, distressed engagements | Rate, other engagements | Fisher p | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 0.44 | 0.33 to 0.58 | 0.82 | 74.19% of 31 | 27.73% of 119 | < 0.001 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 0.45 | 0.26 to 0.78 | 0.83 | 3 of 6 | 33.33% of 36 | 0.649 | 0.956 |
| ITO | 0.42 | 0.24 to 0.74 | 0.80 | 6 of 7 | 27.27% of 33 | 0.007 | 0.969 |
| BPO | 0.31 | 0.14 to 0.67 | 0.88 | 76.92% of 13 | 16.67% of 24 | < 0.001 | 0.994 |
| KPO | 0.51 | 0.29 to 0.89 | 0.77 | 4 of 5 | 30.77% of 26 | 0.060 | 0.866 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 0.50 | † n = 24 | 0.72 | 2 of 2 | 50.00% of 22 | 0.482 | 0.783 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 0.27 | † n = 23 | 0.91 | 6 of 8 | 13.33% of 15 | 0.006 | 0.996 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.37 | † n = 19 | 0.82 | 3 of 4 | 40.00% of 15 | 0.303 | 0.912 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 0.69 | † n = 14 | 0.69 | 2 of 3 | 27.27% of 11 | 0.505 | 0.546 |
| Commercial and business banking | 0.52 | † n = 13 | 0.75 | 1 of 1 | 25.00% of 12 | 0.308 | 0.762 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 0.55 | † n = 13 | 0.70 | 1 of 3 | 20.00% of 10 | 1.000 | 0.557 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 0.28 | † n = 12 | 0.87 | 2 of 3 | 3 of 9 | 0.523 | 0.914 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 0.13 | † n = 12 | 1.00 | 3 of 3 | 1 of 9 | 0.018 | 0.999 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 0.02 | † n = 11 | 1.00 | 1 of 1 | 20.00% of 10 | 0.273 | 0.937 |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 0.55 | 0.36 to 0.84 | 0.75 | 6 of 9 | 34.21% of 38 | 0.129 | 0.877 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 0.32 | 0.15 to 0.68 | 0.88 | 6 of 6 | 13.79% of 29 | < 0.001 | 0.996 |
| Client servicing and communications | 0.41 | † n = 16 | 0.79 | 4 of 5 | 45.45% of 11 | 0.308 | 0.903 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 0.44 | † n = 15 | 0.79 | 3 of 4 | 45.45% of 11 | 0.569 | 0.815 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 0.04 | † n = 12 | 0.93 | 1 of 2 | 10.00% of 10 | 0.318 | 0.794 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 0.48 | 0.33 to 0.70 | 0.80 | 66.67% of 18 | 31.03% of 58 | 0.012 | 0.981 |
| Corporate Functional | 0.39 | 0.25 to 0.61 | 0.84 | 84.62% of 13 | 24.59% of 61 | < 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Active, Production | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |
| Canceled | Not computable, no variation in cancellation |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The study set r was −0.54 (95% CI −0.64 to −0.42, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 20 tested segment levels, 9 held after Holm control.

## Association with Customer Satisfaction

The satisfaction score recorded against each engagement on a 100-point scale. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Table 9a. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Active engagements | Clean r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 94 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.61 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 27 | 0.58 | † | 0.001 | 0.012 | 0.50 | 0.008 |
| ITO | 25 | 0.64 | † | < 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.69 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 23 | 0.66 | † | < 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.63 | 0.001 |
| KPO | 19 | 0.74 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 11 | 0.80 | † | 0.003 | 0.025 | 0.78 | 0.005 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 15 | 0.70 | † | 0.004 | 0.026 | 0.64 | 0.011 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 10 | 0.11 | † | 0.757 | 0.757 | −0.09 | 0.808 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 10 | 0.93 | † | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.89 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 28 | 0.61 | † | < 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.58 | 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 25 | 0.48 | † | 0.016 | 0.047 | 0.55 | 0.005 |
| Client servicing and communications | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 10 | 0.80 | † | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.81 | 0.004 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 8 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 5 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 4 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 46 | 0.76 | 0.60 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 48 | 0.41 | 0.14 to 0.62 | 0.004 | 0.026 | 0.38 | 0.007 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.38 | 0.03 to 0.65 | 0.036 | 0.072 | 0.39 | 0.032 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.76 | 0.59 to 0.86 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.60 | † | 0.006 | 0.027 | 0.61 | 0.005 |
| Canceled | 0 | a |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a No clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population.
Table 9b. Association with customer satisfaction by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Slope, points per rating point | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | All engagements | Descriptive r | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 4.13 | 3.04 to 5.21 | 0.38 | 1.000 | 150 | 0.66 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 3.84 | † n = 27 | 0.34 | 0.961 | 42 | 0.66 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 4.70 | † n = 25 | 0.41 | 0.984 | 40 | 0.65 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 3.91 | † n = 23 | 0.44 | 0.985 | 37 | 0.74 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 5.05 | † n = 19 | 0.55 | 0.995 | 31 | 0.65 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 4.26 | † n = 11 | 0.64 | 0.987 | 24 | 0.54 | 0.006 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 3.45 | † n = 15 | 0.49 | 0.973 | 23 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 0.84 | † n = 10 | 0.01 | 0.302 | 19 | 0.57 | 0.011 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Commercial and business banking | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 6.54 | † n = 10 | 0.86 | 1.000 | 13 | 0.70 | 0.008 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Retail and consumer banking | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 4.20 | † n = 28 | 0.37 | 0.976 | 47 | 0.59 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 3.78 | † n = 25 | 0.23 | 0.838 | 35 | 0.72 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 5.30 | † n = 10 | 0.64 | 0.982 | 12 | 0.76 | 0.004 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 8 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 5 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 4 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 5.03 | 3.71 to 6.35 | 0.57 | 1.000 | 76 | 0.67 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 2.73 | 0.92 to 4.54 | 0.17 | 0.797 | 74 | 0.65 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 2.29 | 0.16 to 4.43 | 0.14 | 0.679 | 31 | 0.38 | 0.036 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 5.43 | 3.95 to 6.92 | 0.57 | 1.000 | 43 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 3.64 | † | 0.35 | 0.940 | 20 | 0.60 | 0.006 |
| Canceled | no clean estimate, canceled engagements fall outside the active population |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The study set r was 0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). Of the 16 tested segment levels, 14 held after Holm control.

## Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings, measured at engagement level (base 150 engagements). Where this indicator is one of the 100, the mean is recomputed without it.

Table 10a. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Engagements | Leave-one-out r | 95% CI | p | Holm p | Spearman rho | p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 150 | 0.76 | 0.69 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | 42 | 0.70 | 0.51 to 0.83 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 40 | 0.76 | 0.59 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.75 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 37 | 0.80 | 0.64 to 0.89 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 31 | 0.82 | 0.65 to 0.91 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 24 | 0.76 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.63 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 23 | 0.82 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.79 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 19 | 0.67 | † | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.72 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 14 | 0.74 | † | 0.003 | 0.010 | 0.73 | 0.003 |
| Commercial and business banking | 13 | 0.85 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.77 | 0.002 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 13 | 0.85 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.76 | 0.002 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 12 | 0.69 | † | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.73 | 0.007 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 12 | 0.76 | † | 0.004 | 0.012 | 0.76 | 0.004 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 11 | 0.86 | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.92 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 47 | 0.65 | 0.44 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.66 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 35 | 0.76 | 0.58 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.76 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 16 | 0.86 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.80 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 15 | 0.87 | † | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.87 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 12 | 0.81 | † | 0.001 | 0.008 | 0.81 | 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 9 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 7 | ‡ | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 76 | 0.84 | 0.76 to 0.90 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 74 | 0.68 | 0.53 to 0.79 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 31 | 0.48 | 0.15 to 0.71 | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.46 | 0.010 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 43 | 0.78 | 0.62 to 0.87 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.77 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 20 | 0.74 | † | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.65 | 0.002 |
| Canceled | 56 | 0.51 | 0.28 to 0.68 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.53 | < 0.001 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 10b. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | r with indicator included | Change in r | Slope | 95% CI | R squared | TOST p | Equivalent |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | Not a component | | 0.59 | 0.51 to 0.67 | 0.58 | 1.000 | No |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | |
| CXM | Not a component | | 0.57 | 0.39 to 0.76 | 0.50 | 1.000 | No |
| ITO | Not a component | | 0.57 | 0.41 to 0.73 | 0.58 | 1.000 | No |
| BPO | Not a component | | 0.55 | 0.41 to 0.69 | 0.64 | 1.000 | No |
| KPO | Not a component | | 0.68 | 0.50 to 0.86 | 0.67 | 1.000 | No |
| Institution type | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | Not a component | | 0.71 | † n = 24 | 0.57 | 0.999 | No |
| Wealth management and private banking | Not a component | | 0.52 | † n = 23 | 0.66 | 1.000 | No |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | Not a component | | 0.41 | † n = 19 | 0.45 | 0.978 | No |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | Not a component | | 0.56 | † n = 14 | 0.55 | 0.983 | No |
| Commercial and business banking | Not a component | | 0.56 | † n = 13 | 0.72 | 0.999 | No |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | Not a component | | 0.70 | † n = 13 | 0.72 | 0.999 | No |
| Credit card and payments issuing | Not a component | | 0.49 | † n = 12 | 0.48 | 0.948 | No |
| Retail and consumer banking | Not a component | | 0.78 | † n = 12 | 0.58 | 0.982 | No |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | Not a component | | 0.77 | † n = 11 | 0.75 | 0.998 | No |
| Private equity and private capital | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Process family | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | Not a component | | 0.55 | 0.35 to 0.74 | 0.42 | 0.999 | No |
| Technology engineering and operations | Not a component | | 0.53 | 0.37 to 0.69 | 0.58 | 1.000 | No |
| Client servicing and communications | Not a component | | 0.67 | † n = 16 | 0.74 | 1.000 | No |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | Not a component | | 0.76 | † n = 15 | 0.76 | 1.000 | No |
| Payments, cards and disputes | Not a component | | 0.58 | † n = 12 | 0.66 | 0.994 | No |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | ‡ n = 9 | | | | | | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | ‡ n = 7 | | | | | | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | Not a component | | 0.65 | 0.55 to 0.74 | 0.71 | 1.000 | No |
| Corporate Functional | Not a component | | 0.53 | 0.40 to 0.67 | 0.46 | 1.000 | No |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | Not a component | | 0.32 | 0.10 to 0.54 | 0.23 | 0.874 | No |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | Not a component | | 0.53 | 0.40 to 0.67 | 0.60 | 1.000 | No |
| Active, Production | Not a component | | 0.53 | † n = 20 | 0.55 | 0.996 | No |
| Canceled | Not a component | | 0.23 | 0.13 to 0.34 | 0.26 | 0.966 | No |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The study set r was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.82, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). Of the 24 tested segment levels, 24 held after Holm control.

## Association with Intent to Leave

The respondent's stated likelihood of leaving the current job within 12 months, rated 1 to 10 (C019). Measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Table 11a. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 1 of 2Table

| Segment | Respondents | r | 95% CI | Cluster bootstrap 95% CI | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | 522 | −0.56 | −0.62 to −0.50 | −0.63 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | |
| CXM | 141 | −0.53 | −0.64 to −0.41 | −0.66 to −0.39 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| ITO | 156 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.42 | −0.68 to −0.37 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO | 127 | −0.69 | −0.77 to −0.59 | −0.78 to −0.58 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| KPO | 98 | −0.49 | −0.63 to −0.33 | −0.68 to −0.26 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Institution type | | | | | | |
| Asset management | 75 | −0.50 | −0.65 to −0.31 | −0.69 to −0.17 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Wealth management and private banking | 87 | −0.66 | −0.76 to −0.52 | −0.78 to −0.52 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | 66 | −0.59 | −0.73 to −0.40 | −0.73 to −0.40 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | 48 | −0.46 | −0.66 to −0.21 | −0.75 to −0.08 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Commercial and business banking | 51 | −0.58 | −0.74 to −0.37 | −0.76 to −0.29 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | 44 | −0.70 | −0.82 to −0.51 | −0.88 to −0.40 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | 45 | −0.48 | −0.68 to −0.22 | −0.67 to −0.26 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Retail and consumer banking | 41 | −0.64 | −0.79 to −0.41 | −0.80 to −0.35 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | 37 | −0.68 | −0.83 to −0.46 | −0.83 to −0.47 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Private equity and private capital | 28 | −0.61 | † | † | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Process family | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | 143 | −0.50 | −0.62 to −0.37 | −0.61 to −0.38 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Technology engineering and operations | 127 | −0.53 | −0.64 to −0.39 | −0.69 to −0.34 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Client servicing and communications | 60 | −0.56 | −0.71 to −0.36 | −0.78 to −0.13 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | 47 | −0.62 | −0.77 to −0.40 | −0.80 to −0.26 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | 46 | −0.73 | −0.84 to −0.56 | −0.85 to −0.57 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | 36 | −0.70 | −0.84 to −0.49 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | 31 | −0.69 | −0.84 to −0.45 | § n = 9 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | 32 | −0.45 | −0.69 to −0.12 | § n = 7 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Class of work | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | 281 | −0.59 | −0.66 to −0.51 | −0.69 to −0.48 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Corporate Functional | 241 | −0.52 | −0.61 to −0.42 | −0.62 to −0.42 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | 111 | −0.46 | −0.60 to −0.30 | −0.65 to −0.24 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | 159 | −0.47 | −0.58 to −0.34 | −0.62 to −0.30 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Active, Production | 66 | −0.52 | −0.68 to −0.32 | −0.74 to −0.21 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Canceled | 186 | 0.02 | −0.12 to 0.17 | −0.13 to 0.17 | 0.745 | 0.745 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | 344 | −0.58 | −0.65 to −0.50 | −0.66 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Engagement Manager | 150 | −0.59 | −0.69 to −0.48 | −0.68 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Portfolio Director | 28 | −0.20 | † | † | 0.313 | 0.625 |
| Customer Management Executive | 0 | ‡ | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | |
| IT services major | 199 | −0.55 | −0.64 to −0.44 | −0.66 to −0.42 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| BPO specialist | 116 | −0.51 | −0.63 to −0.36 | −0.64 to −0.32 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Consulting firm | 75 | −0.51 | −0.66 to −0.32 | −0.73 to −0.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | 53 | −0.69 | −0.81 to −0.52 | −0.84 to −0.45 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | 52 | −0.77 | −0.86 to −0.62 | −0.88 to −0.56 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | 27 | −0.43 | † | † | 0.027 | 0.080 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.
Table 11b. Association with intent to leave by segment, part 2 of 2Table

| Segment | Spearman rho | p | Share at 7 or above, distressed | Share at 7 or above, other | Engagements | Engagement level r | 95% CI | TOST p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Study set | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 84.89% of 139 | 39.69% of 383 | 150 | −0.64 | −0.73 to −0.53 | 1.000 |
| Outsourcing model | | | | | | | | |
| CXM | −0.52 | < 0.001 | 66.67% of 33 | 35.19% of 108 | 42 | −0.63 | −0.78 to −0.40 | 0.996 |
| ITO | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 92.11% of 38 | 47.46% of 118 | 40 | −0.60 | −0.77 to −0.35 | 0.989 |
| BPO | −0.69 | < 0.001 | 89.36% of 47 | 30.00% of 80 | 37 | −0.75 | −0.87 to −0.57 | 1.000 |
| KPO | −0.47 | < 0.001 | 90.48% of 21 | 44.16% of 77 | 31 | −0.58 | −0.78 to −0.29 | 0.971 |
| Institution type | | | | | | | | |
| Asset management | −0.42 | < 0.001 | 91.67% of 12 | 57.14% of 63 | 24 | −0.51 | † | 0.881 |
| Wealth management and private banking | −0.66 | < 0.001 | 81.48% of 27 | 28.33% of 60 | 23 | −0.75 | † | 0.999 |
| Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination) | −0.60 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 20 | 47.83% of 46 | 19 | −0.67 | † | 0.977 |
| Insurance (life, property and casualty, health) | −0.45 | 0.001 | 72.73% of 11 | 43.24% of 37 | 14 | −0.56 | † | 0.859 |
| Commercial and business banking | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 63.64% of 11 | 45.00% of 40 | 13 | −0.71 | † | 0.968 |
| Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing) | −0.67 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 15 | 34.48% of 29 | 13 | −0.77 | † | 0.988 |
| Credit card and payments issuing | −0.47 | 0.001 | 80.00% of 15 | 43.33% of 30 | 12 | −0.61 | † | 0.886 |
| Retail and consumer banking | −0.62 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 10 | 22.58% of 31 | 12 | −0.75 | † | 0.978 |
| Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets) | −0.67 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 10 | 18.52% of 27 | 11 | −0.80 | † | 0.987 |
| Private equity and private capital | −0.61 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 8 | 40.00% of 20 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Process family | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate and back-office functions | −0.50 | < 0.001 | 81.82% of 33 | 42.73% of 110 | 47 | −0.55 | −0.72 to −0.31 | 0.979 |
| Technology engineering and operations | −0.55 | < 0.001 | 92.00% of 25 | 36.27% of 102 | 35 | −0.61 | −0.78 to −0.35 | 0.989 |
| Client servicing and communications | −0.45 | < 0.001 | 77.27% of 22 | 55.26% of 38 | 16 | −0.75 | † | 0.991 |
| Trade, settlement and reconciliation | −0.57 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 15 | 46.88% of 32 | 15 | −0.65 | † | 0.947 |
| Payments, cards and disputes | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 10 | 16.67% of 36 | 12 | −0.86 | † | 0.998 |
| Credit, underwriting and suitability | −0.71 | < 0.001 | 80.00% of 10 | 26.92% of 26 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Regulatory, audit, tax and legal | −0.68 | < 0.001 | ‡ | 50.00% of 22 | 9 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Financial crime and client onboarding | −0.42 | 0.017 | 80.00% of 15 | 47.06% of 17 | 7 | ‡ | ‡ | |
| Class of work | | | | | | | | |
| LOB Operational | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 85.06% of 87 | 40.21% of 194 | 76 | −0.68 | −0.79 to −0.54 | 1.000 |
| Corporate Functional | −0.53 | < 0.001 | 84.62% of 52 | 39.15% of 189 | 74 | −0.59 | −0.72 to −0.42 | 0.999 |
| Engagement status and lifecycle stage | | | | | | | | |
| Active, Build-Out | −0.48 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 9 | 23.53% of 102 | 31 | −0.45 | −0.69 to −0.11 | 0.821 |
| Active, Transition/Cut-Over | −0.45 | < 0.001 | 66.67% of 27 | 19.70% of 132 | 43 | −0.53 | −0.72 to −0.28 | 0.964 |
| Active, Production | −0.48 | < 0.001 | 36.36% of 11 | 14.55% of 55 | 20 | −0.57 | † | 0.921 |
| Canceled | 0.04 | 0.545 | 100.00% of 92 | 100.00% of 94 | 56 | −0.05 | −0.31 to 0.21 | 0.032 |
| Respondent role | | | | | | | | |
| Individual Contributor | −0.58 | < 0.001 | 85.44% of 103 | 39.42% of 241 | 143 | −0.61 | −0.71 to −0.50 | 1.000 |
| Engagement Manager | −0.59 | < 0.001 | 85.71% of 35 | 39.13% of 115 | 150 | −0.59 | −0.69 to −0.48 | 1.000 |
| Portfolio Director | −0.25 | 0.204 | ‡ n = 1 | 44.44% of 27 | 28 | −0.20 | † | 0.293 |
| Customer Management Executive | ‡ n = 0 | | | | | | | |
| Vendor type | | | | | | | | |
| IT services major | −0.56 | < 0.001 | 79.17% of 48 | 41.72% of 151 | 59 | −0.65 | −0.78 to −0.48 | 1.000 |
| BPO specialist | −0.46 | < 0.001 | 86.36% of 44 | 47.22% of 72 | 37 | −0.54 | −0.73 to −0.26 | 0.955 |
| Consulting firm | −0.49 | < 0.001 | 87.50% of 16 | 32.20% of 59 | 23 | −0.53 | † | 0.900 |
| Boutique or specialist provider | −0.67 | < 0.001 | ‡ n = 9 | 43.18% of 44 | 17 | −0.78 | † | 0.997 |
| Pure-play agentic AI firm | −0.73 | < 0.001 | 100.00% of 13 | 23.08% of 39 | 14 | −0.85 | † | 0.999 |
| Not reported, recovered by engagement | −0.46 | 0.015 | ‡ n = 9 | 44.44% of 18 | 24 | −0.40 | † | 0.708 |

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported.

The study set r was −0.56 (95% CI −0.62 to −0.50, Holm p < 0.001, n = 522 respondents). Of the 37 tested segment levels, 34 held after Holm control.

## Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 12. Associations across the four measuresTable

| Measure | Form | Unit | n | r | 95% CI | p | Equivalent to zero | Rank among the four |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | Descriptive contrast | Engagement | 150 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.42 | < 0.001 | No | 4 |
| Customer satisfaction | Clean estimate | Engagement | 94 | 0.62 | 0.48 to 0.73 | < 0.001 | No | 2 |
| Engagement indicator mean | Full | Engagement | 150 | 0.76 | 0.69 to 0.82 | < 0.001 | No | 1 |
| Intent to leave | Respondent level, clustered | Respondent | 522 | −0.56 | −0.63 to −0.49 | < 0.001 | No | 3 |

Table 13. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

| Pair compared | Difference in r | Steiger z | p | Holm p | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction | −0.12 | −5.26 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean | −0.22 | −5.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |
| Cancellation rate and intent to leave | −0.10 | −2.35 | 0.019 | 0.037 | Differ |
| Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean | −0.10 | −3.51 | < 0.001 | 0.001 | Differ |
| Customer satisfaction and intent to leave | 0.02 | 0.86 | 0.390 | 0.390 | Do not differ |
| Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave | 0.13 | 4.04 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | Differ |

Pairs were compared on the engagement level form of every measure, each turned so that a higher value was the better outcome, on the 150 engagements where the indicator and all four measures existed. Of the 6 pairs, 5 differed after Holm control.

## Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 14. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

| Statistic | Value | Reading |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clusters (engagements) | 150 | Engagements with at least one answer. |
| Mean respondents per engagement | 3.7 | Answers per engagement with at least one answer. |
| ICC(1) | 0.61 | Share of variance between engagements. |
| Design effect | 2.63 | 1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC. |
| Nominal respondent n | 554 | Respondents who answered. |
| Effective n | 211 | Nominal n divided by the design effect. |
| Cluster bootstrap applied | Yes | Applied to every respondent level CI where the ICC is 0.05 or above. |

Clustering reduced the 554 respondent answers to about 211 independent answers. Respondent level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap, and respondent level tests on intent to leave used cluster-robust errors.

## Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Table 15. Equivalence tests of null resultsTable

| Measure | n | r | Equivalence bound | TOST p, lower | TOST p, upper | Equivalent to zero | Achieved power | MDE at power 0.80 | Detection floor for this n |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 150 | −0.54 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Customer satisfaction | 94 | 0.62 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.84 | 0.29 | 0.23 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 150 | 0.76 | \|r\| < 0.30 | < 0.001 | 1.000 | No | 0.96 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Intent to leave | 522, effective 198 | −0.56 | \|r\| < 0.30 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | No | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.23 |

No measure showed a tested null. No result was inconclusive. The detection floor column is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective n.

## Robustness Checks

Table 16. Robustness checksTable

| Check | Measure | Primary r | Check r | 95% CI | Change | Conclusion holds |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Cancellation rate | −0.54 | −0.53 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.61 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.75 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Rank correlation in place of Pearson | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.56 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.57 | a | −0.01 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.56 to 0.78 | −0.08 | Yes |
| Active engagements only | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.48 | −0.56 to −0.40 | 0.08 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Cancellation rate | −0.54 | −0.55 | −0.66 to −0.43 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.53 to 0.76 | 0.04 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.70 to 0.83 | 0.01 | Yes |
| Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook's distance) | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.58 | −0.63 to −0.51 | −0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Cancellation rate | −0.54 | −0.54 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.63 | a | 0.01 | Yes |
| Engagements weighted by respondent count | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.77 | a | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Cancellation rate | −0.54 | −0.54 | −0.64 to −0.43 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.46 to 0.75 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.69 to 0.83 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Bootstrap of engagements | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.56 | −0.63 to −0.49 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Cancellation rate | −0.54 | −0.54 | −0.68 to −0.37 | 0.00 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Customer satisfaction | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.34 to 0.72 | −0.06 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.56 to 0.79 | −0.07 | Yes |
| Thin-base segments removed | Intent to leave | −0.56 | −0.51 | −0.60 to −0.42 | 0.05 | Yes |

Note: a No interval for this check.

Each change was computed before rounding, so it can differ by 0.01 from the difference of the two printed values.

Every check held. A check holds when its test lands on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test and, where the primary test is below 0.05, its r keeps the primary sign. Thin-base rule: engagements in any level under 30 engagements of outsourcing model or process family removed. Institution type is not used, because every one of its levels is under 30.

## Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Each of the four measures was computed from data this indicator does not contain, so each result is a finding rather than an arithmetic consequence.

## Comparison with the Study Norm

Table 17. Comparison with the study normTable

| Measure | This indicator, oriented r | Study median, oriented r | Deviation | Fisher z | p | Holm p |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cancellation rate | 0.54 | 0.60 | −0.06 | −1.03 | 0.304 | 0.337 |
| Customer satisfaction | 0.66 | 0.72 | −0.06 | −1.38 | 0.168 | 0.337 |
| Engagement indicator mean | 0.76 | 0.84 | −0.07 | −2.45 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Intent to leave | 0.64 | 0.71 | −0.08 | −1.68 | 0.093 | 0.278 |
| Spread of deviations | | | 0.02 | | | |
| Verdict | TYPICAL | | | | | |

Each deviation was computed before rounding, so it can differ by 0.01 from the difference of the two printed values.

The comparison ran on 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on every measure.

## Co-Occurring Indicators and Themes

Figure 3. Other indicators and themes coded in the same written responses (n = 7 responses)ExhibitNote: Gray bars are other indicators coded in the same responses. Amber bars are themes of the coding rulebook, which carry no score. Labels give counts. Every co-coded indicator and every theme at or above the fifth-highest count of its kind is shown, ties included. C044: “What is the pricing model for this engagement?” C052: “The dashboard and performance reports given to the customer are accurate.” C053: “The vendor manipulates the dashboard and performance reports given to the customer.” C072: “I talk with engagement management inside the customer regularly.” C110: “Rate how well the customer's change control process handles the changes this engagement requires.” C123: “Rate the adequacy of your employer's investment in training its workforce.” C125: “Rate how well your employer's training programs build financial industry knowledge.” C128: “Rate your employer's ability to price agentic work profitably when billable hours no longer measure the value delivered.” C136: “Rate how effectively the customer and vendor jointly manage this engagement now that agents perform part of the work.” C144: “Rate how well the joint change control process keeps pace with the speed of agent behavior changes.” C145: “Rate how well agent updates made by one firm become visible to the other firm before they take effect.” C148: “Rate how well joint human review capacity keeps up with the volume of output the agents produce.” C161: “Rate the predictability of the tools' token consumption for a given volume of work.” C162: “Rate the efficiency of the tools' token use, considering retries, loops, and reprocessing needed to complete work.” C175: “Rate the stability of the tools' behavior over the engagement when nothing changed on the engagement side.” C188: “Rate the quality of the data arriving from third-party feeds, judged by whether agents can use it without human cleanup.” C196: “Rate how completely the engagement has mapped every third and fourth party its agents depend on, down the full chain.” Emotional states coded in the same responses, as counts: calm or fine 1.

The responses coded to the indicator were also coded to 17 other indicators, each in 1 response. The most frequent theme of the coding rulebook in the same responses was “Occurs every cycle or most days” (2 responses).

## Interpretation of the Data

Canceled engagements had the lowest within-budget ratings (mean 3.6, n = 203 respondents), and Active, Production had the highest (mean 6.0, n = 70 respondents). Individual Contributor respondents gave the lowest ratings by role (mean 4.8, n = 375 respondents), and Portfolio Director respondents gave the highest (mean 6.1, n = 28 respondents). The associations with the four study measures held under every robustness check run on this item (22 of 22 checks).

The written responses were not set against the rating, because fewer than 10 responses carried a score. Written responses were voluntary. They recorded what the respondents who wrote reported, and how common it was is measured by the ratings. The analysis of the written responses rested on 7 responses, a base of anecdote strength.

## 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.

Tests across respondent role and vendor type were run at respondent level and treated respondents as independent. The section Clustering and Effective Sample Size states whether, and by how much, clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent level figures.

Customer Management Executive answers were at anecdote strength (n = 1). Answers clustered within engagements, which reduced the effective number of independent answers (ICC 0.61, 554 answers worth about 211 independent answers).

Fewer than 10 responses carried a score, so written sentiment was reported as counts, with no statistic. Coding was performed by AI coders under a fixed rulebook. No response coded to the indicator fell in the sample second-coded under rulebook 0.5, so agreement on whether a response was coded to the indicator could not be assessed. No response coded to the indicator was second-scored under rulebook 0.5, so agreement on the score could not be assessed.

## Definitions

Table 18. DefinitionsTable

| Term | Definition |
| --- | --- |
| Response scale | Ratings run from 1 to 10. Where a high rating is the worse outcome, the analysis uses the goodness view, 11 minus the raw rating. |
| Distressed | A rating of 3 or below on the goodness view. At engagement level, an engagement mean of 3 or below. |
| Answering base | Respondents who gave a rating from 1 to 10. |
| Non-answers | “I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the mean. |
| Indicator class | Respondent level: a value recorded for each respondent and computed across the respondents who answered. |
| 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. |
| Engagement indicator mean | The mean of an engagement's 100 indicator ratings. |
| Written response | A coded written answer about the respondent's own engagement. Non-answers and answers about another engagement are excluded. |
| Primary and secondary | Primary responses were written in answer to a written-answer question in the indicator's own survey section. Secondary responses were written in answer to a question outside that section and coded to the indicator because their content addressed it. |
| Written sentiment scale | Five fixed values of the coding rulebook: −10, −5, 0, +5, +10. The sign is the direction and the magnitude is the strength. |
| Coding | Responses were coded under rulebook 0.5. Scores were added under rulebook 0.6 to every mark and every quote, with the score rulings of rulebook section 21. AI coders worked under a fixed rulebook. A sample of records was second-coded. Score agreement across all indicators was Krippendorff's alpha 0.969 on the 0.5 scores and 0.930 on the scores added in 0.6. |

## Sources and Provenance

Table 19. Sources and provenanceTable

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Study data | Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C050, sha256 219eba0457274d04 |
| Statistics engine | compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b |
| Statistics record | Computed Statistics.json, record C050, 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 | 2,344 of 2,344 |
| Study metadata | Study Meta.md, sections 10.4 and 10.4.1, coder agreement across all indicators |
| Coded written responses | Quotes Master.jsonl, sha256 27da38085e2b13fd. Quote Coding Rulebook, version 0.6 with section 21 |
| Written-response computation | qa_stats.py, sha256 74a61f3a96169da9. wfacts.py, sha256 b85fae20adf812a1. prose_gen.py, sha256 c277d2c752f8d88f. build_indicator.py, sha256 da3473bd56a4a7b9 |
| Written-response records | C050.qa.json, sha256 6456bd455280b2d7. C050.wfacts.json, sha256 c49655ba52ada33d. Prose C050.json, sha256 1bc6feceb03b627f |


## 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/)
- [third-party ecosystem](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/third-party-ecosystem/)
- [part 2](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/part-2-five-failure-categories/)
- [C019](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c019/)
- [C044](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-1-c044/)
- [C052](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c052/)
- [C053](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-5-c053/)
- [C072](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-4-c072/)
- [C110](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c110/)
- [C123](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c123/)
- [C125](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c125/)
- [C128](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c128/)
- [C136](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c136/)
- [C144](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c144/)
- [C145](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c145/)
- [C148](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c148/)
- [C161](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c161/)
- [C162](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c162/)
- [C175](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c175/)
- [C188](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c188/)
- [C196](https://akholi.com/outsourcing-2026-agentic-ai-tier-1-banks/study-data/part-2-c196/)