Study Data · Part 1 · Indicator Deep-Dive Analysis

How many years has your employer been delivering agentic AI outsourcing?

Indicator C078 · By Phil Hatch · Akholi · October 9, 2026

← Study Data ← Previous indicator Next indicator →

Indicator Specification Summary of Findings Distribution of Responses Descriptive Statistics by Segment Tests of Difference Between Segments Association with Cancellation Rate Association with Customer Satisfaction Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean Association with Intent to Leave Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures Clustering and Effective Sample Size Equivalence Tests of Null Results Robustness Checks Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction Comparison with the Study Norm Interpretation of the Data Limitations Definitions Sources and Provenance

Indicator Specification

Table 1. Indicator specificationTable

Field	Value
Indicator code	C078
Question as asked	How many years has your employer been delivering agentic AI outsourcing?
Failure category	Not one of the 100 rated indicators
Place in the survey	Vendor Details > 4.1 Vendor Profile > Profile
Indicator class	Perceived fact
Indicator type	Typed number
Response scale	A number, as typed or recorded
Answering base	571 of 850 respondents, across 150 of 150 engagements
Non-answers	I do not know 220, I prefer to not answer 0, blank 59

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	−0.12	−0.28 to 0.04	0.136
Customer satisfaction	Clean estimate	94 engagements	−0.09	−0.28 to 0.12	0.407
Engagement indicator mean	Full	150 engagements	0.04	−0.12 to 0.20	0.633
Intent to leave	Respondent level, clustered	543 respondents	−0.02	−0.16 to 0.12	0.726

Respondents reported the years their employer had delivered agentic AI outsourcing (mean 1.0, median 1.0, n = 571 respondents). The association with cancellation was close to zero (r = −0.12, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.04, p 0.136, n = 150 engagements) and tested as equivalent to zero (TOST p 0.012). Customer satisfaction on active engagements showed a near-zero association (r = −0.09, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.12, p 0.407, n = 94 active engagements) that tested as equivalent to zero (TOST p 0.017). The engagement indicator mean showed a near-zero association (r = 0.04, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.20, p 0.633, n = 150 engagements) that also tested as equivalent to zero (TOST p < 0.001). Intent to leave at respondent level showed a near-zero association (r = −0.02, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.16 to 0.12, p 0.726, n = 543 respondents) that tested as equivalent to zero (TOST p < 0.001). Reported years did not differ after Holm control in any segment family (Holm p 1.000 in every family).

Distribution of Responses

Table 3. Distribution of responses, respondent levelTable

Answer	Respondents	Share of answered (base 571)	Cumulative share	Engagements with at least one	Share of 150 engagements	Distressed
0.0 to 0.2	121	21.19%	21.19%	35	23.33%	Not applicable
0.2 to 0.4	0	0.00%	21.19%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
0.4 to 0.6	0	0.00%	21.19%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
0.6 to 0.8	0	0.00%	21.19%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
0.8 to 1.0	0	0.00%	21.19%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
1.0 to 1.2	346	60.60%	81.79%	89	59.33%	Not applicable
1.2 to 1.4	0	0.00%	81.79%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
1.4 to 1.6	0	0.00%	81.79%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
1.6 to 1.8	0	0.00%	81.79%	0	0.00%	Not applicable
1.8 to 2.0	104	18.21%	100.00%	26	17.33%	Not applicable
I do not know	220	Not in base	Not in base	126	84.00%	Not applicable
I prefer to not answer	0	Not in base	Not in base	0	0.00%	Not applicable
Answered, total	571	100.00%		150	100.00%

Table 4. Distribution of responses, 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, as recorded	150	0.9	0.6	0.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable

The study set mean was 1.0 on 571 answering respondents, with a median of 1.0.

Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Table 5a. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 1 of 2Table

Segment	Base	Answered	Answer rate	Engagements	Mean	95% CI	SD
Study set	850	571	67.18% of 850	150	1.0	0.9 to 1.0	0.6
Outsourcing model
CXM	232	161	69.40% of 232	42	1.0	0.8 to 1.1	0.7
ITO	244	161	65.98% of 244	40	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
BPO	209	138	66.03% of 209	37	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
KPO	165	111	67.27% of 165	31	0.9	0.8 to 1.0	0.6
Institution type
Asset management	132	84	63.64% of 132	24	1.2	1.1 to 1.3	0.6
Wealth management and private banking	140	90	64.29% of 140	23	0.8	0.7 to 1.0	0.7
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	105	71	67.62% of 105	19	0.9	0.8 to 1.1	0.7
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	78	53	67.95% of 78	14	1.1	0.9 to 1.2	0.5
Commercial and business banking	82	60	73.17% of 82	13	0.9	0.8 to 1.1	0.5
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	71	47	66.20% of 71	13	0.7	0.5 to 0.9	0.7
Credit card and payments issuing	73	48	65.75% of 73	12	1.1	1.0 to 1.3	0.5
Retail and consumer banking	73	47	64.38% of 73	12	0.9	0.7 to 1.1	0.7
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	57	42	73.68% of 57	11	1.0	0.8 to 1.1	0.6
Private equity and private capital	39	29	74.36% of 39	9	1.2	†	0.5
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	248	170	68.55% of 248	47	0.9	0.9 to 1.0	0.6
Technology engineering and operations	204	134	65.69% of 204	35	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
Client servicing and communications	94	68	72.34% of 94	16	1.1	0.9 to 1.3	0.7
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	80	49	61.25% of 80	15	1.1	0.9 to 1.3	0.7
Payments, cards and disputes	73	48	65.75% of 73	12	1.1	0.8 to 1.3	0.8
Credit, underwriting and suitability	57	41	71.93% of 57	9	0.9	0.8 to 1.1	0.4
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	51	32	62.75% of 51	9	0.7	0.5 to 0.9	0.5
Financial crime and client onboarding	43	29	67.44% of 43	7	0.9	†	0.6
Class of work
LOB Operational	451	303	67.18% of 451	76	0.9	0.9 to 1.0	0.6
Corporate Functional	399	268	67.17% of 399	74	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	175	120	68.57% of 175	31	1.1	0.9 to 1.2	0.7
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	250	177	70.80% of 250	43	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.7
Active, Production	103	68	66.02% of 103	20	1.1	1.0 to 1.3	0.6
Canceled	322	206	63.98% of 322	56	0.9	0.8 to 0.9	0.5
Respondent role
Individual Contributor	667	389	58.32% of 667	147	1.0	0.9 to 1.0	0.6
Engagement Manager	150	150	100.00% of 150	150	0.9	0.8 to 1.0	0.6
Portfolio Director	31	30	96.77% of 31	30	1.0	0.7 to 1.2	0.6
Customer Management Executive	2	2	2 of 2	2	‡
Vendor type
IT services major	316	216	68.35% of 316	59	0.9	0.9 to 1.0	0.6
BPO specialist	198	133	67.17% of 198	37	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
Consulting firm	117	74	63.25% of 117	23	1.0	0.9 to 1.1	0.6
Boutique or specialist provider	87	66	75.86% of 87	17	0.9	0.8 to 1.1	0.8
Pure-play agentic AI firm	75	50	66.67% of 75	14	1.1	0.9 to 1.2	0.4
Not reported, recovered by engagement	57	32	56.14% of 57	29	1.1	0.8 to 1.3	0.6

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

Table 5b. Descriptive statistics by segment, part 2 of 2Table

Segment	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Distressed n	Distressed %
Study set	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Outsourcing model
CXM	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
ITO	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
BPO	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
KPO	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Institution type
Asset management	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Wealth management and private banking	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Commercial and business banking	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Credit card and payments issuing	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Retail and consumer banking	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Private equity and private capital	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Technology engineering and operations	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Client servicing and communications	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Payments, cards and disputes	0.0	0.8	1.0	2.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Credit, underwriting and suitability	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Financial crime and client onboarding	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Class of work
LOB Operational	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Corporate Functional	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Active, Production	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Canceled	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Respondent role
Individual Contributor	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Engagement Manager	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Portfolio Director	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Customer Management Executive	‡ n = 2
Vendor type
IT services major	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
BPO specialist	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Consulting firm	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Boutique or specialist provider	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.8	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Pure-play agentic AI firm	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable
Not reported, recovered by engagement	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	Not applicable	Not applicable

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

Figures are respondent level. Means are on the scale as recorded. A level under 30 prints no interval and a level under 10 prints counts only.

Tests of Difference Between Segments

Table 6a. Tests of difference between segments, part 1 of 2Table

Segment family	Welch F	df	p	Holm p	Omega squared	90% CI
Outsourcing model	0.02	3, 78.8	0.995	1.000	−0.020	0.000 to 0.000
Institution type	1.11	8, 49.8	0.374	1.000	0.013	0.000 to 0.093
Process family	0.13	4, 38.3	0.971	1.000	−0.028	0.000 to 0.000
Class of work	0.39	1, 147.8	0.533	1.000	−0.004	0.000 to 0.033
Engagement status and lifecycle stage	0.90	3, 60.2	0.448	1.000	−0.002	0.000 to 0.050
Respondent role	0.21	2, 76.7	0.813	1.000	−0.003	0.000 to 0.005
Vendor type	0.71	5, 159.9	0.617	1.000	−0.004	0.000 to 0.008

Table 6b. Tests of difference between segments, part 2 of 2Table

Segment family	Kruskal-Wallis H	p	Distressed chi-square	p	Levels left out
Outsourcing model	0.06	0.996	Not applicable	Not applicable	None
Institution type	9.99	0.266	Not applicable	Not applicable	a
Process family	0.59	0.964	Not applicable	Not applicable	b
Class of work	0.41	0.520	Not applicable	Not applicable	None
Engagement status and lifecycle stage	2.52	0.472	Not applicable	Not applicable	None
Respondent role	0.43	0.805	Not applicable	Not applicable	c
Vendor type	2.70	0.746	Not applicable	Not applicable	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 = 2.

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. No difference held after Holm control for outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work, engagement status and lifecycle stage, respondent role 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 7a. 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	−0.12	−0.28 to 0.04	0.136	1.000
Outsourcing model
CXM	42	15	35.71% of 42	0.12	−0.19 to 0.41	0.435	1.000
ITO	40	15	37.50% of 40	−0.11	−0.41 to 0.21	0.501	1.000
BPO	37	14	37.84% of 37	−0.27	−0.55 to 0.06	0.104	1.000
KPO	31	12	38.71% of 31	−0.32	−0.61 to 0.04	0.080	1.000
Institution type
Asset management	24	13	54.17% of 24	−0.16	†	0.465	1.000
Wealth management and private banking	23	8	34.78% of 23	−0.26	†	0.232	1.000
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	19	9	47.37% of 19	0.07	†	0.767	1.000
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	14	5	35.71% of 14	−0.56	†	0.038	0.764
Commercial and business banking	13	4	30.77% of 13	0.11	†	0.725	1.000
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	13	3	23.08% of 13	0.04	†	0.884	1.000
Credit card and payments issuing	12	5	41.67% of 12	−0.49	†	0.109	1.000
Retail and consumer banking	12	4	33.33% of 12	−0.34	†	0.275	1.000
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	11	3	27.27% of 11	0.00	†	1.000	1.000
Private equity and private capital	9	2	2 of 9	‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	47	19	40.43% of 47	0.01	−0.27 to 0.30	0.923	1.000
Technology engineering and operations	35	10	28.57% of 35	−0.04	−0.37 to 0.29	0.806	1.000
Client servicing and communications	16	9	56.25% of 16	−0.68	†	0.004	0.076
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	15	8	53.33% of 15	−0.42	†	0.117	1.000
Payments, cards and disputes	12	2	16.67% of 12	−0.25	†	0.442	1.000
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	−0.13	−0.35 to 0.09	0.250	1.000
Corporate Functional	74	26	35.14% of 74	−0.11	−0.33 to 0.13	0.370	1.000
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 7b. 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	0.67	0.39 to 1.14	0.56	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.012
Outsourcing model
CXM	1.46	0.58 to 3.71	0.57	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.124
ITO	0.68	0.22 to 2.05	0.55	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.112
BPO	0.36	0.10 to 1.27	0.64	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.429
KPO	0.34	0.10 to 1.18	0.67	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.545
Institution type
Asset management	0.60	† n = 24	0.58	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.243
Wealth management and private banking	0.41	† n = 23	0.63	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.422
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	1.24	† n = 19	0.54	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.172
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	0.09	† n = 14	0.77	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.856
Commercial and business banking	1.66	† n = 13	0.56	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.263
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	1.18	† n = 13	0.55	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.201
Credit card and payments issuing	0.17	† n = 12	0.71	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.746
Retail and consumer banking	0.30	† n = 12	0.69	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.557
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	1.00	† n = 11	0.50	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.191
Private equity and private capital	‡ n = 9
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	1.05	0.42 to 2.63	0.51	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.025
Technology engineering and operations	0.86	0.27 to 2.76	0.52	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.066
Client servicing and communications	0.06	† n = 16	0.86	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.970
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	0.20	† n = 15	0.71	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.688
Payments, cards and disputes	0.38	† n = 12	0.68	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.430
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	0.65	0.32 to 1.34	0.57	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.067
Corporate Functional	0.69	0.32 to 1.53	0.55	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0.043
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 −0.12 (95% CI −0.28 to 0.04, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 20 tested segment levels, 0 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 8a. 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	−0.09	−0.28 to 0.12	0.407	1.000	−0.08	0.418
Outsourcing model
CXM	27	−0.29	†	0.138	1.000	−0.27	0.172
ITO	25	0.23	†	0.275	1.000	0.18	0.401
BPO	23	−0.01	†	0.964	1.000	−0.01	0.963
KPO	19	−0.09	†	0.727	1.000	−0.10	0.693
Institution type
Asset management	11	−0.43	†	0.181	1.000	−0.58	0.062
Wealth management and private banking	15	0.29	†	0.303	1.000	0.29	0.295
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	10	0.20	†	0.584	1.000	0.05	0.881
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	9	‡
Commercial and business banking	9	‡
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	10	−0.41	†	0.241	1.000	−0.22	0.538
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	−0.13	†	0.515	1.000	−0.17	0.401
Technology engineering and operations	25	−0.07	†	0.752	1.000	−0.08	0.699
Client servicing and communications	7	‡
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	7	‡
Payments, cards and disputes	10	−0.20	†	0.576	1.000	−0.07	0.853
Credit, underwriting and suitability	8	‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	5	‡
Financial crime and client onboarding	4	‡
Class of work
LOB Operational	46	−0.14	−0.41 to 0.16	0.370	1.000	−0.12	0.434
Corporate Functional	48	−0.03	−0.31 to 0.26	0.845	1.000	−0.03	0.845
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	31	−0.11	−0.44 to 0.26	0.565	1.000	−0.09	0.649
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	43	0.03	−0.27 to 0.33	0.856	1.000	0.01	0.944
Active, Production	20	−0.35	†	0.136	1.000	−0.32	0.172
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 8b. 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	−1.50	−5.07 to 2.07	0.01	0.017	150	0.09	0.259
Outsourcing model
CXM	−4.72	† n = 27	0.09	0.486	42	−0.21	0.182
ITO	3.60	† n = 25	0.05	0.357	40	0.14	0.373
BPO	−0.19	† n = 23	0.00	0.090	37	0.27	0.102
KPO	−1.69	† n = 19	0.01	0.186	31	0.29	0.113
Institution type
Asset management	−6.54	† n = 11	0.19	0.671	24	0.10	0.643
Wealth management and private banking	3.75	† n = 15	0.08	0.478	23	0.31	0.147
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	2.67	† n = 10	0.04	0.386	19	−0.02	0.927
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	‡ n = 9
Commercial and business banking	‡ n = 9
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	−8.64	† n = 10	0.17	0.629	13	−0.20	0.522
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	−2.23	† n = 28	0.02	0.184	47	−0.05	0.739
Technology engineering and operations	−1.08	† n = 25	0.00	0.127	35	0.02	0.922
Client servicing and communications	‡ n = 7
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	‡ n = 7
Payments, cards and disputes	−2.83	† n = 10	0.04	0.391	12	0.15	0.652
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	−2.58	−8.33 to 3.16	0.02	0.128	76	0.09	0.428
Corporate Functional	−0.45	−5.01 to 4.12	0.00	0.030	74	0.09	0.453
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	−1.48	−6.69 to 3.72	0.01	0.143	31	−0.11	0.565
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	0.56	−5.62 to 6.73	0.00	0.038	43	0.03	0.856
Active, Production	−6.01	†	0.12	0.583	20	−0.35	0.136
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 −0.09 (95% CI −0.28 to 0.12, Holm p 1.000, n = 94 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 16 tested segment levels, 0 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 9a. 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	0.04	−0.12 to 0.20	0.633	1.000	0.07	0.392
Outsourcing model
CXM	42	−0.35	−0.59 to −0.05	0.025	0.626	−0.34	0.030
ITO	40	0.22	−0.10 to 0.50	0.169	1.000	0.24	0.138
BPO	37	0.22	−0.11 to 0.51	0.187	1.000	0.25	0.137
KPO	31	0.25	−0.11 to 0.56	0.174	1.000	0.28	0.126
Institution type
Asset management	24	0.04	†	0.865	1.000	0.03	0.900
Wealth management and private banking	23	0.25	†	0.246	1.000	0.23	0.287
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	19	0.36	†	0.127	1.000	0.31	0.192
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	14	0.41	†	0.149	1.000	0.40	0.159
Commercial and business banking	13	−0.37	†	0.215	1.000	−0.36	0.230
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	13	−0.25	†	0.406	1.000	−0.16	0.611
Credit card and payments issuing	12	0.17	†	0.588	1.000	0.21	0.518
Retail and consumer banking	12	0.20	†	0.534	1.000	0.18	0.569
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	11	−0.22	†	0.514	1.000	−0.10	0.780
Private equity and private capital	9	‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	47	−0.10	−0.38 to 0.19	0.486	1.000	−0.11	0.446
Technology engineering and operations	35	−0.01	−0.34 to 0.33	0.970	1.000	−0.01	0.938
Client servicing and communications	16	0.35	†	0.184	1.000	0.35	0.182
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	15	0.49	†	0.061	1.000	0.51	0.051
Payments, cards and disputes	12	−0.06	†	0.859	1.000	−0.07	0.818
Credit, underwriting and suitability	9	‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	9	‡
Financial crime and client onboarding	7	‡
Class of work
LOB Operational	76	0.03	−0.20 to 0.25	0.799	1.000	0.08	0.494
Corporate Functional	74	0.05	−0.18 to 0.27	0.685	1.000	0.05	0.698
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	31	−0.21	−0.53 to 0.15	0.254	1.000	−0.13	0.484
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	43	−0.09	−0.38 to 0.22	0.561	1.000	−0.07	0.640
Active, Production	20	−0.25	†	0.288	1.000	−0.19	0.428
Canceled	56	0.30	0.04 to 0.52	0.027	0.651	0.34	0.010

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

Table 9b. Association with the engagement indicator mean by segment, part 2 of 2Table

Segment	r with indicator included	Slope	95% CI	R squared	TOST p	Equivalent
Study set	Not a component	0.09	−0.28 to 0.47	0.00	< 0.001	Yes
Outsourcing model
CXM	Not a component	−0.81	−1.52 to −0.11	0.12	0.624	No
ITO	Not a component	0.47	−0.21 to 1.16	0.05	0.305	No
BPO	Not a component	0.49	−0.25 to 1.24	0.05	0.312	No
KPO	Not a component	0.61	−0.28 to 1.50	0.06	0.389	No
Institution type
Asset management	Not a component	0.09	† n = 24	0.00	0.106	No
Wealth management and private banking	Not a component	0.55	† n = 23	0.06	0.408	No
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	Not a component	0.57	† n = 19	0.13	0.611	No
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	Not a component	1.14	† n = 14	0.17	0.657	No
Commercial and business banking	Not a component	−1.09	† n = 13	0.14	0.597	No
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	Not a component	−0.64	† n = 13	0.06	0.435	No
Credit card and payments issuing	Not a component	0.43	† n = 12	0.03	0.344	No
Retail and consumer banking	Not a component	0.46	† n = 12	0.04	0.374	No
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	Not a component	−0.53	† n = 11	0.05	0.405	No
Private equity and private capital	‡ n = 9
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	Not a component	−0.26	−1.00 to 0.48	0.01	0.087	No
Technology engineering and operations	Not a component	−0.01	−0.75 to 0.73	0.00	0.043	Yes
Client servicing and communications	Not a component	0.85	† n = 16	0.12	0.580	No
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	Not a component	1.02	† n = 15	0.24	0.790	No
Payments, cards and disputes	Not a component	−0.10	† n = 12	0.00	0.225	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	0.07	−0.46 to 0.60	0.00	0.008	Yes
Corporate Functional	Not a component	0.11	−0.44 to 0.67	0.00	0.014	Yes
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	Not a component	−0.32	−0.88 to 0.24	0.04	0.308	No
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	Not a component	−0.17	−0.76 to 0.42	0.01	0.084	No
Active, Production	Not a component	−0.51	† n = 20	0.06	0.412	No
Canceled	Not a component	0.32	0.04 to 0.61	0.09	0.485	No

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

The study set r was 0.04 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.20, Holm p 1.000, n = 150 engagements). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 24 tested segment levels, 0 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 10a. 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	543	−0.02	−0.11 to 0.06	−0.16 to 0.11	0.565	1.000
Outsourcing model
CXM	152	0.12	−0.04 to 0.28	−0.14 to 0.38	0.137	1.000
ITO	154	−0.08	−0.24 to 0.07	−0.31 to 0.15	0.299	1.000
BPO	131	−0.14	−0.30 to 0.04	−0.42 to 0.17	0.118	1.000
KPO	106	−0.04	−0.23 to 0.15	−0.38 to 0.27	0.665	1.000
Institution type
Asset management	79	0.15	−0.08 to 0.36	−0.18 to 0.43	0.194	1.000
Wealth management and private banking	85	−0.18	−0.38 to 0.04	−0.47 to 0.10	0.103	1.000
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	65	0.04	−0.21 to 0.28	−0.46 to 0.55	0.762	1.000
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	47	−0.34	−0.57 to −0.06	−0.62 to −0.02	0.019	0.615
Commercial and business banking	59	0.18	−0.08 to 0.42	−0.40 to 0.68	0.169	1.000
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	46	0.11	−0.18 to 0.39	−0.39 to 0.70	0.450	1.000
Credit card and payments issuing	46	−0.33	−0.57 to −0.05	−0.66 to 0.07	0.024	0.759
Retail and consumer banking	46	−0.26	−0.51 to 0.03	−0.68 to 0.24	0.077	1.000
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	42	0.18	−0.13 to 0.46	−0.52 to 0.80	0.243	1.000
Private equity and private capital	28	0.19	†	†	0.327	1.000
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	156	0.13	−0.03 to 0.28	−0.11 to 0.36	0.105	1.000
Technology engineering and operations	128	0.13	−0.04 to 0.30	−0.11 to 0.36	0.131	1.000
Client servicing and communications	65	−0.57	−0.71 to −0.38	−0.78 to −0.30	< 0.001	< 0.001
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	47	−0.33	−0.56 to −0.05	−0.74 to 0.15	0.024	0.759
Payments, cards and disputes	48	−0.39	−0.61 to −0.12	−0.72 to 0.14	0.006	0.219
Credit, underwriting and suitability	38	0.43	0.13 to 0.66	a	0.007	0.232
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	32	0.04	−0.31 to 0.38	§ n = 9	0.836	1.000
Financial crime and client onboarding	29	0.53	†	†	0.003	0.114
Class of work
LOB Operational	290	−0.10	−0.21 to 0.02	−0.30 to 0.11	0.089	1.000
Corporate Functional	253	0.07	−0.05 to 0.20	−0.11 to 0.25	0.239	1.000
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	114	0.21	0.03 to 0.38	−0.05 to 0.44	0.026	0.763
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	170	0.17	0.02 to 0.31	−0.03 to 0.36	0.025	0.763
Active, Production	65	−0.05	−0.29 to 0.20	−0.47 to 0.43	0.698	1.000
Canceled	194	0.11	−0.03 to 0.25	0.00 to 0.22	0.132	1.000
Respondent role
Individual Contributor	362	−0.01	−0.11 to 0.09	−0.16 to 0.14	0.848	1.000
Engagement Manager	150	−0.05	−0.21 to 0.11	−0.21 to 0.10	0.516	1.000
Portfolio Director	30	0.00	−0.36 to 0.36	−0.31 to 0.32	0.992	1.000
Customer Management Executive	1	‡
Vendor type
IT services major	209	−0.18	−0.31 to −0.04	−0.37 to 0.02	0.010	0.328
BPO specialist	124	0.19	0.02 to 0.36	−0.18 to 0.55	0.033	0.931
Consulting firm	71	0.09	−0.15 to 0.31	−0.33 to 0.42	0.480	1.000
Boutique or specialist provider	62	−0.01	−0.26 to 0.24	−0.40 to 0.42	0.952	1.000
Pure-play agentic AI firm	47	−0.19	−0.45 to 0.10	−0.52 to 0.20	0.200	1.000
Not reported, recovered by engagement	30	−0.04	−0.40 to 0.32	−0.31 to 0.22	0.829	1.000

Note: † Base under 30. No interval is reported. § Too few engagements for a cluster bootstrap interval. ‡ Base under 10. No statistic is reported. a Not computable, under 90% of resamples valid.

Table 10b. 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	−0.04	0.399	Not applicable	Not applicable	150	−0.01	−0.17 to 0.15	< 0.001
Outsourcing model
CXM	0.12	0.153	Not applicable	Not applicable	42	0.21	−0.10 to 0.48	0.269
ITO	−0.11	0.170	Not applicable	Not applicable	40	−0.06	−0.36 to 0.26	0.061
BPO	−0.14	0.116	Not applicable	Not applicable	37	−0.15	−0.45 to 0.18	0.183
KPO	−0.06	0.514	Not applicable	Not applicable	31	−0.15	−0.48 to 0.21	0.203
Institution type
Asset management	0.11	0.340	Not applicable	Not applicable	24	0.11	†	0.182
Wealth management and private banking	−0.20	0.068	Not applicable	Not applicable	23	−0.25	†	0.402
Investment banking (advisory and capital-markets origination)	0.04	0.731	Not applicable	Not applicable	19	0.06	†	0.159
Insurance (life, property and casualty, health)	−0.35	0.016	Not applicable	Not applicable	14	−0.32	†	0.533
Commercial and business banking	0.20	0.120	Not applicable	Not applicable	13	0.21	†	0.375
Payments and merchant acquiring (networks, acquiring, processing)	0.15	0.326	Not applicable	Not applicable	13	0.22	†	0.387
Credit card and payments issuing	−0.33	0.025	Not applicable	Not applicable	12	−0.36	†	0.582
Retail and consumer banking	−0.25	0.094	Not applicable	Not applicable	12	−0.33	†	0.537
Markets and trading (sales and trading, global markets)	0.16	0.314	Not applicable	Not applicable	11	0.31	†	0.507
Private equity and private capital	0.22	0.259	Not applicable	Not applicable	9	‡	‡
Process family
Corporate and back-office functions	0.11	0.157	Not applicable	Not applicable	47	0.13	−0.16 to 0.41	0.123
Technology engineering and operations	0.15	0.102	Not applicable	Not applicable	35	0.13	−0.21 to 0.45	0.161
Client servicing and communications	−0.58	< 0.001	Not applicable	Not applicable	16	−0.52	†	0.834
Trade, settlement and reconciliation	−0.29	0.044	Not applicable	Not applicable	15	−0.40	†	0.656
Payments, cards and disputes	−0.30	0.041	Not applicable	Not applicable	12	−0.38	†	0.607
Credit, underwriting and suitability	0.43	0.008	Not applicable	Not applicable	9	‡	‡
Regulatory, audit, tax and legal	0.05	0.778	Not applicable	Not applicable	9	‡	‡
Financial crime and client onboarding	0.47	0.010	Not applicable	Not applicable	7	‡	‡
Class of work
LOB Operational	−0.10	0.089	Not applicable	Not applicable	76	−0.09	−0.31 to 0.13	0.033
Corporate Functional	0.06	0.314	Not applicable	Not applicable	74	0.08	−0.15 to 0.30	0.025
Engagement status and lifecycle stage
Active, Build-Out	0.20	0.035	Not applicable	Not applicable	31	0.22	−0.14 to 0.53	0.329
Active, Transition/Cut-Over	0.19	0.015	Not applicable	Not applicable	43	0.18	−0.12 to 0.46	0.218
Active, Production	0.02	0.852	Not applicable	Not applicable	20	−0.04	†	0.137
Canceled	0.09	0.197	Not applicable	Not applicable	56	0.23	−0.04 to 0.46	0.287
Respondent role
Individual Contributor	−0.02	0.676	Not applicable	Not applicable	146	0.03	−0.13 to 0.19	< 0.001
Engagement Manager	−0.07	0.366	Not applicable	Not applicable	150	−0.05	−0.21 to 0.11	< 0.001
Portfolio Director	0.01	0.968	Not applicable	Not applicable	30	0.00	−0.36 to 0.36	0.055
Customer Management Executive	‡ n = 1
Vendor type
IT services major	−0.19	0.006	Not applicable	Not applicable	59	−0.18	−0.42 to 0.08	0.166
BPO specialist	0.17	0.064	Not applicable	Not applicable	37	0.25	−0.08 to 0.53	0.377
Consulting firm	0.08	0.508	Not applicable	Not applicable	23	−0.06	†	0.131
Boutique or specialist provider	−0.02	0.900	Not applicable	Not applicable	17	0.07	†	0.186
Pure-play agentic AI firm	−0.16	0.293	Not applicable	Not applicable	14	−0.20	†	0.365
Not reported, recovered by engagement	−0.01	0.963	Not applicable	Not applicable	27	−0.06	†	0.114

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

The study set r was −0.02 (95% CI −0.11 to 0.06, Holm p 1.000, n = 543 respondents). The association did not hold after Holm control. Equivalence Tests of Null Results found it equivalent to zero inside the bound. Of the 37 tested segment levels, 1 held after Holm control.

Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Table 11. 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	−0.12	−0.28 to 0.04	0.136	Yes	1
Customer satisfaction	Clean estimate	Engagement	94	−0.09	−0.28 to 0.12	0.407	Yes	2
Engagement indicator mean	Full	Engagement	150	0.04	−0.12 to 0.20	0.633	Yes	3
Intent to leave	Respondent level, clustered	Respondent	543	−0.02	−0.16 to 0.12	0.726	Yes	4

Table 12. Pairwise comparison of associationsTable

Pair compared	Difference in r	Steiger z	p	Holm p	Reading
Cancellation rate and customer satisfaction	0.03	1.04	0.300	0.702	Do not differ
Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean	0.08	1.36	0.175	0.702	Do not differ
Cancellation rate and intent to leave	0.10	1.94	0.053	0.315	Do not differ
Customer satisfaction and engagement indicator mean	0.05	1.20	0.230	0.702	Do not differ
Customer satisfaction and intent to leave	0.07	1.88	0.060	0.315	Do not differ
Engagement indicator mean and intent to leave	0.02	0.36	0.722	0.722	Do not 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, 0 differed after Holm control.

Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Table 13. Clustering and effective sample sizeTable

Statistic	Value	Reading
Clusters (engagements)	150	Engagements with at least one answer.
Mean respondents per engagement	3.8	Answers per engagement with at least one answer.
ICC(1)	1.00	Share of variance between engagements.
Design effect	3.81	1 plus (mean cluster size minus 1) times ICC.
Nominal respondent n	571	Respondents who answered.
Effective n	150	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 571 respondent answers to about 150 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 14. 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	−0.12	\|r\| < 0.30	0.012	< 0.001	Yes	0.96	0.23	0.23
Customer satisfaction	94	−0.09	\|r\| < 0.30	0.017	< 0.001	Yes	0.84	0.29	0.23
Engagement indicator mean	150	0.04	\|r\| < 0.30	< 0.001	< 0.001	Yes	0.96	0.23	0.23
Intent to leave	543, effective 142	−0.02	\|r\| < 0.30	< 0.001	< 0.001	Yes	0.95	0.23	0.23

Tested null, equivalent to zero: cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. 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 15. Robustness checksTable

Check	Measure	Primary r	Check r	95% CI	Change	Conclusion holds
Rank correlation in place of Pearson	Cancellation rate	−0.12	−0.12	a	0.00	Yes
Rank correlation in place of Pearson	Customer satisfaction	−0.09	−0.08	a	0.00	Yes
Rank correlation in place of Pearson	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	0.07	a	0.03	Yes
Rank correlation in place of Pearson	Intent to leave	−0.02	−0.04	a	−0.01	Yes
Non-answers excluded, then imputed at the engagement mean	Intent to leave	−0.02	−0.02	a	0.00	Yes
Active engagements only	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	−0.17	−0.36 to 0.04	−0.21	Yes
Active engagements only	Intent to leave	−0.02	0.14	0.03 to 0.24	0.16	Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook’s distance)	Cancellation rate	−0.12	−0.14	−0.29 to 0.02	−0.02	Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook’s distance)	Customer satisfaction	−0.09	−0.12	−0.32 to 0.08	−0.04	Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook’s distance)	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	0.06	−0.10 to 0.22	0.02	Yes
Most influential engagement removed (largest Cook’s distance)	Intent to leave	−0.02	−0.04	−0.12 to 0.05	−0.01	Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent count	Cancellation rate	−0.12	−0.12	a	0.00	Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent count	Customer satisfaction	−0.09	−0.07	a	0.02	Yes
Engagements weighted by respondent count	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	0.04	a	0.01	Yes
Bootstrap of engagements	Cancellation rate	−0.12	−0.12	−0.27 to 0.03	0.00	Yes
Bootstrap of engagements	Customer satisfaction	−0.09	−0.09	−0.30 to 0.13	0.00	Yes
Bootstrap of engagements	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	0.04	−0.12 to 0.20	0.00	Yes
Bootstrap of engagements	Intent to leave	−0.02	−0.02	−0.16 to 0.12	0.00	Yes
Thin-base segments removed	Cancellation rate	−0.12	−0.01	−0.23 to 0.21	0.11	Yes
Thin-base segments removed	Customer satisfaction	−0.09	−0.10	−0.36 to 0.17	−0.01	Yes
Thin-base segments removed	Engagement indicator mean	0.04	−0.07	−0.28 to 0.15	−0.10	Yes
Thin-base segments removed	Intent to leave	−0.02	0.13	0.01 to 0.24	0.16	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 16. Comparison with the study normTable

Measure	This indicator, oriented r	Study median, oriented r	Deviation	Fisher z	p	Holm p
Cancellation rate	0.12	0.60	−0.48	−6.87	< 0.001	< 0.001
Customer satisfaction	0.09	0.72	−0.63	−9.86	< 0.001	< 0.001
Engagement indicator mean	0.04	0.84	−0.80	−14.18	< 0.001	< 0.001
Intent to leave	0.02	0.71	−0.69	−10.52	< 0.001	< 0.001
Spread of deviations			0.32
Verdict	DIVERGENT

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 departed from the study’s typical pattern on cancellation rate, customer satisfaction, engagement indicator mean and intent to leave.

Interpretation of the Data

Respondents placed their employers early in agentic AI outsourcing delivery (mean 1.0, median 1.0, n = 571 respondents). The absence of any association with the four study measures held under every robustness check run on this item (22 of 22 checks).

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.

Answers clustered fully within engagements, which left about one independent answer per engagement (ICC 1.00, 571 answers worth about 150 independent answers). Customer Management Executive answers were at anecdote strength (n = 2).

Definitions

Table 17. DefinitionsTable

Term	Definition
Response scale	As recorded, shown in Table 1. The indicator is not a rating, so no distressed range is defined.
Answering base	Respondents who entered a value.
Non-answers	“I do not know” and “I prefer to not answer” are counted separately and are excluded from the mean.
Indicator class	Perceived fact: a state of the engagement as the respondent perceives it, so “I do not know” is counted and reported as an answer.
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.

Sources and Provenance

Table 18. Sources and provenanceTable

Item	Value
Study data	Study Data.xlsx, Data sheet, column C078, sha256 219eba0457274d04
Statistics engine	compute_statistics.py, sha256 738319eef764602b
Statistics record	Computed Statistics.json, record C078, 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	2,042 of 2,042

Continue the report

Executive summary →

Overview

Executive Summary

Four findings from 150 engagements

Read →

Introduction

Scope, evidence, and how the report is organized

Read →

Part 1

Engagement Outcomes

Poor results on every measure, and what separates them

Read →

Part 2

The Five Failure Categories

Where failure concentrates, category by category

Read →

Part 3

Governance, Oversight, and Control

Controls that existed in name only

Read →

Part 4

The Delivery Workforce

Early in their careers, dissatisfied, and many intending to leave

Read →

Part 5

Manual Alteration

How the delivery team altered the work to sustain it

Read →

Part 6

Executive Action Plan

Seven immediate actions and a first-year plan

Read →

Appendices

Definitions, indicator inventory, method, and disclosures

Read →

Data

Study Data

Deep-dive analyses of the study indicators, published in stages

Read →

How many years has your employer been delivering agentic AI outsourcing?

On this page

Indicator Specification

Summary of Findings

Distribution of Responses

Descriptive Statistics by Segment

Tests of Difference Between Segments

Association with Cancellation Rate

Association with Customer Satisfaction

Association with the Engagement Indicator Mean

Association with Intent to Leave

Comparison of Associations Across the Four Measures

Clustering and Effective Sample Size

Equivalence Tests of Null Results

Robustness Checks

Measure Independence and Part-Whole Correction

Comparison with the Study Norm

Interpretation of the Data

Limitations

Definitions

Sources and Provenance

Continue the report