I or my management discussed data alteration with the client

Of the 366 respondents who answered, 3 (0.82%) answered True and 363 (99.18%) answered False. No association with the study measures was tested, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Of the 109 written responses, 96 were negative. At least 53 of the 96 negative responses said the financial institution was not told, or that the alteration stayed within the vendor team. Eleven responses said the financial institution had been told, had asked for the corrections or had been shown them.

Of the 366 respondents who answered, 3 (0.82%) answered True and 363 (99.18%) answered False. The non-answers were I do not know (30) and I prefer to not answer (17). Each engagement was assigned the answer given by the largest number of its respondents. No engagement was assigned True, and False was the assigned answer on 114 engagements, “I do not know” on 6, “I prefer to not answer” on 3, and 27 engagements were tied or unanswered and carry no assigned answer.

The primary responses numbered 108, written in answer to C204, C202 and C210, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 1 responses, 0.92% of the total, were secondary and came from 1 other questions. That secondary share ranked 8th from the highest among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, against a median of 2.00%. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 0. Negative responses made up 87.96% of primary responses (95 of 108) and 1 of the 1 secondary responses.

In 53 of the 96 negative responses, the respondent said the financial institution was not told, or that the alteration stayed within the team. In 52, the team lead or manager was told or knew, and several said the lead was told and not the financial institution. Some respondents gave a reason: the financial institution would blame the vendor for its own data, nothing had been fixed after earlier reports, or raising each case would leave no time for the work.

Eleven responses said the financial institution had been told directly or in writing, had asked the team to clean the data, had been shown the reconciliation on a call, or had agreed a formal step for data exceptions with its platform owner. Two more said the respondent thought the financial institution was aware without having been told, and six said the respondent did not know whether it was told.

Of the 109 responses, 96 (88.07%, 95% CI 80.77% to 94.44%) were negative and 73 (66.97%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 8 (7.34%), and 5 were neutral. The mean written score was −7.3 (95% CI −8.3 to −6.2, n = 109 responses), and the median was −10.0.

Each share is computed on the respondents who answered in that row. Rows with fewer than 10 respondents report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagements, and respondent role and vendor type on respondents. The share answering True did not differ by any segment family after Holm correction.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 69 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 2.81, df 3, p = 0.421). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean −7.8, 64 responses) and responses from active engagements in Build-Out the least negative (mean −5.9, 16 responses). Responses from active engagements in Production (7) are reported as counts only.

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 103 responses, engagement managers 4 and portfolio directors 2.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation. Each test compares the engagements by their assigned answer, within the study set and within each segment.

Of the engagements assigned False, 49 of 114 were canceled. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements.

Among active engagements, customer satisfaction was 61.4% (n = 65 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level. The indicator is not a rated indicator and does not enter the mean.

The engagement indicator mean was 3.7 (n = 114 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10 by up to 798 respondents. For the indicator, the comparison uses the mean intent to leave of each engagement.

The engagement mean of intent to leave was 7.1 (n = 114 engagements) where respondents most often answered False. No test was computed, because fewer than two answers were assigned to at least ten engagements.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 86 other engagements, 81 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 64 engagements with a negative response, 33 (51.56%) were canceled, against 23 of the 86 other engagements (26.74%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.002). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 58.03% on 31 engagements against 67.08% on 63, Welch t −3.79, p < 0.001).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 69 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.04, p = 0.740). Across 92 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.38, p < 0.001). Of the four comparisons, three reached significance at 0.05.

Fewer than two associations were tested, so no comparison across the measures applies.

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.46). Clustering reduced the 413 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 203 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was tested, so no equivalence test applies. The equivalence bound is an omega squared of 0.090, the study's threshold for a negligible association expressed as variance explained.

No robustness check could be computed, because no primary test was computed.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence.

A categorical indicator has no signed correlation with the study measures and therefore no profile against the study norm. The comparison by answer appears in the four association sections.

Among the 13 Part 5 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 88.07%, ranked 8th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −7.3, ranked 4th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C200, “I discussed the data alteration with internal management”, in 84 of the 109 responses (77.06%). C199, “I have altered client-provided data” (74 responses), C094, “Rate the quality of the customer's data across the systems this engagement depends on.” (43 responses), C203, “My greater team regularly alters client provided data.” (14 responses) and C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” (10 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Financial institution was not told”, in 70 responses (64.22%). The second was “Told vendor-side management”, in 63 responses.

Of the respondents who answered, 0.82% said they or their management had discussed the data alteration with the financial institution (three of 366). No engagement was assigned the answer True, so no association with the study measures could be tested.

The written evidence matches the answers. Respondents described data altered as routine work, discussed within the vendor team and with the team lead, and seldom raised with the financial institution. The few exceptions describe a financial institution that asked for the corrections or agreed a formal step for them.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal. The answer is the respondent's own report of an alteration and not a record of it.

Each engagement carries the answer given by the largest number of its respondents, and tied engagements are excluded from the engagement-level tests.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (109 responses on 69 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses are counted by sets of words stated in each rule. A response that described a practice in other words is not counted, so each count is a floor.

With three respondents answering True, the indicator supports a description of how rarely the alteration was discussed and no comparison by answer.