Experience telemetry
What the throughput numbers cost the people on the other side of them
18 measures across 17 audiences, split into the people who work inside the estate and the people the estate serves. They sit here rather than inside a function dashboard for one reason: cycle time and unit cost are easy to improve by making somebody else absorb the difficulty, and this is the page where that shows up.
Health
Direction of travel, not level
A measure is red because it is worse than its own baseline, regardless of whether the absolute number still looks acceptable.
Moved the wrong way
7 of 18
3 employee · 4 customer. Every one of these sits behind a throughput gain reported elsewhere in the product.
Improved
10 of 18
1 flat. Improvement here is not the same as improvement in throughput and is not counted twice.
Asked a person
9 of 18
Collected by survey rather than inferred from system events. Total sample 1,254,541 responses.
Carrying a stated gap
5
Collection window Jul 21, 2026 to Aug 17, 2026.
Operations
Employee, then customer
Each row shows the current reading, the baseline it is measured against, how it was collected and how many people it is based on. A small sample is not hidden.
People who work inside the estate
9 measures · 0 degraded · 215,489 responses
| Measure | Audience | Baseline | Now | Move | Sample | Method | Collected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reached a person on the first attempt, when they asked for oneDegraded The clearest case of the trade the estate is making. Touchless handling went up 29 points and the share of people who got a human when they asked for one went down 12.8. Both numbers are real and they point in opposite directions. Survey of 2,410 employees against a population of roughly 41,000. Response skews towards people who had a problem. | Employees raising an HR case | 71.2 | 58.4 | -12.8 | 2,410 | survey | Aug 11, 2026 |
Satisfaction with the case outcomeDegraded Cases close nearly five times faster and satisfaction fell two tenths of a point. Small, consistent across four survey waves, and not noise. | Employees whose HR case was closed | 4.3 | 4.1 | -0.2 | 3,180 | survey | Aug 11, 2026 |
Said the reason for the outcome was explained clearlyFlat Unchanged. Two thirds is not a good number and it has not moved in a year, which suggests explanation quality is nobody’s objective. | Employees who received an automated outcome | 66.0 | 66.0 | 0.0 | 2,410 | survey | Aug 11, 2026 |
Time to a usable answerImproved Measured from the platform, not asked. Session start to the first answer the user did not immediately rephrase. Counts an answer as usable when the user stops asking. Some of those users gave up. | Employees using self-service | 8.7 | 3.2 | -5.5 | 184,000 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Confidence in the decision without re-checking the sourceImproved Rising, slowly. The gap between a trust score of 87.4 and a manager confidence of 3.4 out of 5 is the distance between what the system believes about itself and what its supervisors believe about it. | Managers reviewing agent-produced decisions | 3.1 | 3.4 | +0.3 | 640 | survey | Jul 28, 2026 |
Automated outcomes sent back for rework after a challengeDegraded More work is automated and a larger share of it comes back. In absolute terms rework rose from about 470 to about 1,010 items a week. | Employees who challenged an automated outcome | 6.2 | 8.9 | +2.7 | 11,400 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Satisfaction with the resolutionImproved The counter-example. In IT, speed and satisfaction moved together. Password, access and provisioning work is where nobody wanted a conversation in the first place. | Employees whose IT incident was resolved without a person | 4.0 | 4.4 | +0.4 | 8,920 | survey | Aug 11, 2026 |
Described the automated close steps as understood, not opaqueImproved Improved after the station-level evidence trail was published. Transparency moved the number more than accuracy did. | Finance staff on the monthly close | 58.0 | 72.0 | +14.0 | 310 | survey | Aug 4, 2026 |
Hours a week spent handling exceptions, per personImproved Time on exceptions fell per person while the number of people fell too. Total exception hours across the estate fell from about 41,500 to about 13,500 a week. Derived from work-unit timestamps rather than from time recording. Time a person spends thinking about an exception away from the system is invisible. | Operations staff across all towers | 11.4 h | 6.1 h | -5.3 | 2,219 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
People the estate serves
9 measures · 0 degraded · 1,039,052 responses
| Measure | Audience | Baseline | Now | Move | Sample | Method | Collected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resolved without needing a second contactDegraded The second clear inversion. Disputes close three times faster and one in nine more customers has to come back a second time to get there. Faster is not the same as finished. | Customers raising a billing dispute | 74.8 | 63.1 | -11.7 | 4,780 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Time to order acknowledgementImproved Every order in the week, not a sample. The largest single experience improvement in the estate. | Customers placing an order | 252.0 | 11.0 | -241.0 | 107,549 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Customer effort scoreImproved Lower is better. Simple queries got easier, which is what the automation was aimed at. | Customers with a billing query | 3.4 | 2.9 | -0.5 | 1,960 | survey | Aug 7, 2026 |
Reached a named person rather than a queue or a botDegraded The third inversion and the sharpest. Cost to serve fell by two thirds and fewer than half the customers who asked for a person got one. This is the number a regulator would ask about first. | Customers who asked to speak to someone | 69.0 | 44.2 | -24.8 | 3,140 | survey | Aug 7, 2026 |
Decision explained in writing with the reason statedImproved Automation made explanations cheap, so they got issued. A rare case where handing the work to a machine improved the paperwork rather than removing it. Measures that an explanation was sent, not that it was understood. Nobody has tested comprehension. | Customers receiving a credit decision | 62.0 | 91.0 | +29.0 | 6,210 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Satisfaction with the onboarding experienceImproved Barely moved despite the cycle time collapsing. Suppliers care more about being paid than about being onboarded quickly. | Suppliers being onboarded | 3.5 | 3.6 | +0.1 | 480 | survey | Jul 21, 2026 |
Query answered correctly on the first responseImproved Improved because the agent can see the full document trail in one place, which the previous shared mailbox could not. | Suppliers querying an invoice | 68.2 | 81.4 | +13.2 | 9,400 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Complaints per 10,000 transactionsDegraded Rate up 45 percent on a volume that more than doubled. In absolute terms complaints rose from roughly 420 to roughly 1,280 a week. Both the rate and the count moved the wrong way. | All service recipients | 9.8 | 14.2 | +4.4 | 900,433 | telemetry | Aug 17, 2026 |
Net promoter scoreDegraded Six points down while the cost to serve fell by two thirds. This is the headline the estate would rather not print and it belongs next to the saving, not away from it. Modeled. It is a weighted reconstruction from the survey and complaint measures on this page rather than a directly fielded NPS study, and it should be read as a direction rather than a score. | All service recipients | 28.0 | 22.0 | -6.0 | 5,100 | modeled | Jul 31, 2026 |
Actions
Where throughput was bought with experience
Each of these is a measure that got worse while the corresponding volume, cost or cycle time improved. That trade may be acceptable. It has to be made deliberately.
Reached a person on the first attempt, when they asked for one
71.2 → 58.4The clearest case of the trade the estate is making. Touchless handling went up 29 points and the share of people who got a human when they asked for one went down 12.8. Both numbers are real and they point in opposite directions.
Employees raising an HR case · survey · 2,410 responses · paired with H2R touchless share, 70 percent, up from 41
Satisfaction with the case outcome
4.3 → 4.1Cases close nearly five times faster and satisfaction fell two tenths of a point. Small, consistent across four survey waves, and not noise.
Employees whose HR case was closed · survey · 3,180 responses · paired with H2R mean handling time, 4.2 hours, down from 19.6
Automated outcomes sent back for rework after a challenge
6.2 → 8.9More work is automated and a larger share of it comes back. In absolute terms rework rose from about 470 to about 1,010 items a week.
Employees who challenged an automated outcome · telemetry · 11,400 responses · paired with R2R touchless share, 72 percent, up from 38
Resolved without needing a second contact
74.8 → 63.1The second clear inversion. Disputes close three times faster and one in nine more customers has to come back a second time to get there. Faster is not the same as finished.
Customers raising a billing dispute · telemetry · 4,780 responses · paired with O2C dispute cycle time, 3.1 days, down from 9.4
Reached a named person rather than a queue or a bot
69.0 → 44.2The third inversion and the sharpest. Cost to serve fell by two thirds and fewer than half the customers who asked for a person got one. This is the number a regulator would ask about first.
Customers who asked to speak to someone · survey · 3,140 responses · paired with C2L cost to serve, $9.86 per transaction, down from $28.90
Complaints per 10,000 transactions
9.8 → 14.2Rate up 45 percent on a volume that more than doubled. In absolute terms complaints rose from roughly 420 to roughly 1,280 a week. Both the rate and the count moved the wrong way.
All service recipients · telemetry · 900,433 responses · paired with Estate volume, 900,433 transactions a week
Net promoter score
28.0 → 22.0Six points down while the cost to serve fell by two thirds. This is the headline the estate would rather not print and it belongs next to the saving, not away from it.
All service recipients · modeled · 5,100 responses · paired with Estate cost to serve, $9.1M a week, down from $27.9M
Live observability
Every measure against its own baseline
The bar is the current reading as a share of the better of the two readings, so a longer bar always means a better experience regardless of which direction the raw number moves.
Movement since baseline
18 measures · 10 up · 1 flat · 7 down
Reached a person on the first attempt, when they asked for one
employee · Employees raising an HR case
Satisfaction with the case outcome
employee · Employees whose HR case was closed
Said the reason for the outcome was explained clearly
employee · Employees who received an automated outcome
Time to a usable answer
employee · Employees using self-service
Confidence in the decision without re-checking the source
employee · Managers reviewing agent-produced decisions
Automated outcomes sent back for rework after a challenge
employee · Employees who challenged an automated outcome
Satisfaction with the resolution
employee · Employees whose IT incident was resolved without a person
Described the automated close steps as understood, not opaque
employee · Finance staff on the monthly close
Hours a week spent handling exceptions, per person
employee · Operations staff across all towers
Resolved without needing a second contact
customer · Customers raising a billing dispute
Time to order acknowledgement
customer · Customers placing an order
Customer effort score
customer · Customers with a billing query
Reached a named person rather than a queue or a bot
customer · Customers who asked to speak to someone
Decision explained in writing with the reason stated
customer · Customers receiving a credit decision
Satisfaction with the onboarding experience
customer · Suppliers being onboarded
Query answered correctly on the first response
customer · Suppliers querying an invoice
Complaints per 10,000 transactions
customer · All service recipients
Net promoter score
customer · All service recipients
Is policy and strategy coming to fruition
The stated position, tested against the telemetry
The program committed that automation would not be paid for out of the experience of the people around it. Here is what the record says.
Position
No experience measure degrades while its paired throughput measure improves.
Not holding — 7 measures of 18 moved the wrong way. 39% of the telemetry.
Position
A person can always reach a person.
Employees raising an HR case: 71.2 → 58.4 · Customers who asked to speak to someone: 69.0 → 44.2
Position
Experience is asked, not inferred.
Partly — 9 of 18 measures come from asking somebody. The rest are derived from system events, which tell you what happened but not how it felt.
What this page is, and what it is not
A security certification and a penetration test are organizational attestations. The product can house them, track their currency and surface their scope; it cannot manufacture them. Present the trust center as the place they live, never as evidence that they exist.
Experience telemetry has the same limit. These 18 readings are generated from the modeled estate; no survey on this page was sent to a real person and no customer was actually asked. What the page does establish is a discipline rather than a fact: experience is reported on the same surface and at the same cadence as throughput, so a cycle-time gain cannot be presented without the 7 measures that moved the other way appearing next to it.