I or my management discussed process alteration with the client

Of the 414 respondents who answered, 9 (2.17%) answered True and 405 (97.83%) 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 124 written responses, 99 were negative. At least 57 of the 99 negative responses said the financial institution was not told, or that the alteration stayed within the vendor team. Twelve responses said the financial institution had been told or already knew, and four described changes signed off by the financial institution before they were applied.

Of the 414 respondents who answered, 9 (2.17%) answered True and 405 (97.83%) answered False. The non-answers were I do not know (37) and I prefer to not answer (22). 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 116 engagements, “I do not know” on 7, “I prefer to not answer” on 1, and 26 engagements were tied or unanswered and carry no assigned answer.

The primary responses numbered 123, written in answer to C210, C208 and C204, the written-answer questions of the indicator's survey section. The remaining 1 responses, 0.81% of the total, were secondary and came from 1 other questions. That secondary share ranked 10th 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 79.67% of primary responses (98 of 123) and 1 of the 1 secondary responses.

In 57 of the 99 negative responses, the respondent said the financial institution was not told, or that the alteration stayed within the team. In 53, the team lead or manager was told or knew. Several respondents said the financial institution saw only the finished, clean version of the work.

Twelve responses said the financial institution had been told directly, had been looped in as the team built its own steps, or already knew that the team made process calls on its behalf. Four positive responses described every change routed through a joint forum or a formal review and signed off by the financial institution before it was applied. Nine responses said the respondent did not know whether the financial institution was told.

Of the 124 responses, 99 (79.84%, 95% CI 70.48% to 87.97%) were negative and 73 (58.87%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 15 (12.10%), and 10 were neutral. The mean written score was −6.2 (95% CI −7.3 to −5.0, n = 124 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 68 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 0.56, df 3, p = 0.906). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from active engagements in Production were the most negative (mean −7.3, 11 responses) and responses from active engagements in Build-Out the least negative (mean −5.4, 13 responses).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 112 responses, engagement managers 7 and portfolio directors 5.

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, 47 of 116 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 61.0% (n = 69 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 3.8 (n = 116 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 = 116 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 92 other engagements, 82 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 58 engagements with a negative response, 28 (48.28%) were canceled, against 28 of the 92 other engagements (30.43%). The difference reached significance (Fisher exact p = 0.037). Customer satisfaction among active engagements differed between the two groups (mean 60.90% on 30 engagements against 65.59% on 64, Welch t −2.00, p < 0.050).

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 68 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r 0.07, p = 0.565). Across 104 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho 0.00, p = 0.975). Of the four comparisons, two reached significance at 0.05.

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

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.38). Clustering reduced the 473 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 237 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, 79.84%, ranked 10th from the highest, against a median of 98.03%. Its mean written score, −6.2, ranked 9th from the most negative, against a median of −6.3.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C206, “I discussed the process alteration with internal management”, in 94 of the 124 responses (75.81%). C205, “I have altered client processes” (78 responses), C209, “My greater team regularly alters client processes.” (27 responses), C109, “Rate how quickly the customer responds when this engagement raises issues that need customer action.” (18 responses) and C100, “Rate how completely the customer's processes are mapped and documented to the depth agentic AI requires.” (12 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Told vendor-side management”, in 80 responses (64.52%). The second was “Financial institution was not told”, in 76 responses.

Of the respondents who answered, 2.17% said they or their management had discussed the process alteration with the financial institution (nine of 414). 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 processes altered as routine work, discussed within the vendor team and with the team lead, and seldom raised with the financial institution. The exceptions describe a financial institution told after the fact, or a joint forum that signed off each change before it was applied.

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 (124 responses on 68 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 nine respondents answering True, the indicator supports a description of how rarely the process alteration was discussed and no comparison by answer.