Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Assessment
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 479 instances
Review Product Information
How 14 analysts execute this task across 261 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
80.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.4–97.5
46.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.6 min median
2.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
56.4% have multiple sub-steps
43.6%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
43.6% of instances follow this exactly
Review Product Information — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 511 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Products Section
0.3s
0.1 edits
Veeva Safety
99%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Product Information Reference Path
223 instances · 12 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 223 instances across 12 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Product Information.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
14 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
13 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
11 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Product: Pembrolizumab
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Change Type
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
View External Product
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 87.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +7.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Medical History Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Create New Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +3.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Excel
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Excel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Excel during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open System Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,089 | 84.0% | 99.8% |
| Microsoft Word | 48 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 31 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 26 | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 20 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 17 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| ONENOTE | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 12 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 6 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 6 |
| Microsoft Teams | Acrobat | 6 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,216 events 261 cases 80.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
541×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
368×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
348×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
278×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
226×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
179×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
178×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
173×
Phobos DOM 861 events 120 cases 23.7 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
108×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
80×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
64×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
62×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
61×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
38×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
34×
Microsoft Word Document 248 events 63 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
932×
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
791×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
499×
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
380×
file
Document1
303×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
264×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
232×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
213×
Acrobat App 200 events 52 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,201 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 139 events 64 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,719 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 123 events 41 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
610×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
378×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
228×
file
I-0000346875
167×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000355770
93×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (1)
57×
file
Priorización
49×
Microsoft Outlook Message 90 events 51 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 41 events 25 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
ONENOTE Document 32 events 19 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
apps.powerapps.com App 27 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.94
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.13
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.94
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.94
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.13
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 39.4 | 71.2m | 16 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2291397 | Analyst 13 | 48.8 | 2.1m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2309302 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 2.2m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2304888 | Analyst 09 | 54.2 | 10.2m | 9 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2342075 | Analyst 02 | 54.2 | 4.3m | 9 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
14 analysts executed this task during the pilot. Scatter plots productivity (instances per active day) against adherence (meta score). Top-right = healthy high-volume analysts; bottom-right = firefighters; top-left = careful low-volume; bottom-left = struggling.
Adherence (meta score) →
Productivity (instances / active day) →
15
04
06
12
14
07
08
11
01
09
03
05
02
13
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
View No Items Found
3
Select Drug Discontinued
4
View No Items Found
5
View Case Assessments
6
Select Unknown Value
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
Select Products
9
Create New Item
10
Select External Product
11
Continue
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.5 | 83.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 383 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 35 of 71 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 25 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 83.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
3
Open Reference Numbers
4
View E2B Re-Transmittable
5
View Local Reference Number
6
View E2B Re-Transmittable
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 14 | 2.8 | 82.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.00 | 55 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
3
View Reference Numbers
4
View Contacts
5
View Study
6
View Patient
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Validation Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 8,643 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 4 | 1.0 | 81.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Case Assessment Results
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 170 | 10.6 | 80.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4,432 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 80 of 170 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 69 distinct sequences across their 170 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 205 | 15.8 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 2,784 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 89 of 205 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 75 distinct sequences across their 205 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 9 | 1.5 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 20 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 9 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 7 distinct sequences across their 9 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 13 | 1.9 | 75.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.23 | 0.00 | 56 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 13 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 13 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 14 | 1.4 | 71.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 7,386 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Acrobat
3
Microsoft Word
4
Select Adverse Events
5
Acrobat
6
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 14 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.4–97.5
47.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.9 min median
2.8
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
60.5% have multiple sub-steps
39.5%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
39.5% of instances follow this exactly
Review Product Information — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 511 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Products Section
0.3s
0.1 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Product Information Reference Path
202 instances · 11 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 202 instances across 11 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Product Information.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
13 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
12 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
9 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Change Type
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
View External Product
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 87.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +7.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Product: Pembrolizumab
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Delete Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Excel
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Excel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Excel during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open System Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Medical History Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Create New Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.8 vs reference 80.4 (delta +3.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,205 | 84.0% | 99.7% |
| Microsoft Word | 55 | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 36 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 29 | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 19 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| ONENOTE | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 23 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 13 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 8 |
| Microsoft Outlook | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| Microsoft Teams | Acrobat | 6 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,216 events 261 cases 80.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
541×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
368×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
348×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
278×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
226×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
179×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
178×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
173×
Phobos DOM 861 events 120 cases 23.7 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
108×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
80×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
64×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
62×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
61×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
38×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
34×
Microsoft Word Document 248 events 63 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
932×
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
791×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
499×
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
380×
file
Document1
303×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
264×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
232×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
213×
Acrobat App 200 events 52 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,201 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 139 events 64 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,719 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 123 events 41 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
610×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
378×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
228×
file
I-0000346875
167×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000355770
93×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (1)
57×
file
Priorización
49×
Microsoft Outlook Message 90 events 51 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 41 events 25 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
ONENOTE Document 32 events 19 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
apps.powerapps.com App 27 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.16
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.16
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 39.4 | 71.2m | 16 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2291397 | Analyst 13 | 48.8 | 2.1m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2304888 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 13.7m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2309302 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 2.2m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2225437 | Analyst 13 | 53.2 | 47.5m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
Users on This Task
14 analysts executed this task during the pilot. Scatter plots productivity (instances per active day) against adherence (meta score). Top-right = healthy high-volume analysts; bottom-right = firefighters; top-left = careful low-volume; bottom-left = struggling.
Adherence (meta score) →
Productivity (instances / active day) →
15
04
06
14
07
08
11
01
12
09
03
05
02
13
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
View No Items Found
3
Select Drug Discontinued
4
View No Items Found
5
View Case Assessments
6
Select Unknown Value
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
Select Products
9
Create New Item
10
Select External Product
11
Continue
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.5 | 84.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 425 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 33 of 71 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 83.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
3
Open Reference Numbers
4
View E2B Re-Transmittable
5
View Local Reference Number
6
View E2B Re-Transmittable
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
3
View Reference Numbers
4
View Contacts
5
View Study
6
View Patient
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Validation Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 8,643 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
3
Select Adverse Events
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 4 | 1.0 | 81.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Case Assessment Results
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 14 | 2.8 | 81.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 70 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 4 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 170 | 10.6 | 80.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4,530 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 73 of 170 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 74 distinct sequences across their 170 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 205 | 15.8 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 2,907 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 80 of 205 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 88 distinct sequences across their 205 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 9 | 1.5 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 20 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 9 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 7 distinct sequences across their 9 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 13 | 1.9 | 75.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.23 | 0.00 | 73 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 13 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 13 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 14 | 1.4 | 70.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.37 | 0.00 | 7,445 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Acrobat
3
Microsoft Word
4
Select Adverse Events
5
Acrobat
6
Microsoft Word
7
Create New Item
8
Acrobat
9
Microsoft Word
10
Acrobat
11
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 14 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.4–97.5
49.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.7 min median
2.7
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
55.9% have multiple sub-steps
44.1%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
44.1% of instances follow this exactly
Review Product Information — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 483 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Products Section
0.3s
0.1 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Product Information Reference Path
213 instances · 12 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 213 instances across 12 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Product Information.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
13 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
13 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
10 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Product: Pembrolizumab
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Change Type
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
View External Product
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 87.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +7.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Excel
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Excel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Excel during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open System Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Medical History Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Create New Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.8 vs reference 80.2 (delta +3.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Delete Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.2 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,089 | 84.0% | 99.8% |
| Microsoft Word | 48 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 31 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 26 | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 20 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 17 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| ONENOTE | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 12 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 10 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 6 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 6 |
| Microsoft Teams | Acrobat | 6 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,216 events 261 cases 80.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
541×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
368×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
348×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
278×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
226×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
179×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
178×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
173×
Phobos DOM 861 events 120 cases 23.7 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
108×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
80×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
64×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
62×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
61×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
38×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
34×
Microsoft Word Document 248 events 63 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
932×
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
791×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
499×
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
380×
file
Document1
303×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
264×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
232×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
213×
Acrobat App 200 events 52 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,201 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 139 events 64 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,719 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 123 events 41 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
610×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
378×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
228×
file
I-0000346875
167×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000355770
93×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (1)
57×
file
Priorización
49×
Microsoft Outlook Message 90 events 51 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 41 events 25 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
ONENOTE Document 32 events 19 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
apps.powerapps.com App 27 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.94
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.19
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.94
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.94
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.19
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 39.4 | 71.2m | 16 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2291397 | Analyst 13 | 48.8 | 2.1m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2309302 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 2.2m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2304888 | Analyst 09 | 54.2 | 10.2m | 9 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2342075 | Analyst 02 | 54.2 | 4.3m | 9 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
14 analysts executed this task during the pilot. Scatter plots productivity (instances per active day) against adherence (meta score). Top-right = healthy high-volume analysts; bottom-right = firefighters; top-left = careful low-volume; bottom-left = struggling.
Adherence (meta score) →
Productivity (instances / active day) →
15
06
04
07
08
11
14
12
01
09
03
05
02
13
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
View No Items Found
3
Select Drug Discontinued
4
View No Items Found
5
View Case Assessments
6
Select Unknown Value
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
Select Products
9
Create New Item
10
Select External Product
11
Continue
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 83.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
3
Open Reference Numbers
4
View E2B Re-Transmittable
5
View Local Reference Number
6
View E2B Re-Transmittable
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 67 | 5.2 | 83.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 386 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 34 of 67 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 26 distinct sequences across their 67 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Validation Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 8,643 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
3
View Reference Numbers
4
View Contacts
5
View Study
6
View Patient
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 13 | 2.6 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.00 | 55 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 13 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 13 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 4 | 1.0 | 81.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Case Assessment Results
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 165 | 10.3 | 80.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4,436 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 79 of 165 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 68 distinct sequences across their 165 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 188 | 14.5 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 2,793 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 82 of 188 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 72 distinct sequences across their 188 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 9 | 1.5 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 20 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 9 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 7 distinct sequences across their 9 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 74.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 56 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 12 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
tools.meddra.org
3
collaboration.merck.com
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 14 | 1.4 | 71.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 7,386 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Acrobat
3
Microsoft Word
4
Select Adverse Events
5
Acrobat
6
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 14 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.1
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.4–97.5
50.5 min
Avg Task Duration
0.9 min median
3.0
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
60.3% have multiple sub-steps
39.7%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
39.7% of instances follow this exactly
Review Product Information — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 479 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Products Section
0.3s
0.1 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Product Information Reference Path
190 instances · 11 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 190 instances across 11 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Product Information.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
13 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
12 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Case Assessment Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
8 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Change Type
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
View External Product
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 87.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +7.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Delete Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Excel
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Microsoft Excel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Excel during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open System Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
View Product: Pembrolizumab
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Case Assessments
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Study Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,205 | 84.0% | 99.7% |
| Microsoft Word | 55 | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 36 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 29 | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 19 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| ONENOTE | 8 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| TextInputHost | 7 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 29 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 23 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 13 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Outlook | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 6 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,216 events 261 cases 80.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
541×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
368×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
348×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
278×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
226×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
179×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
178×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
173×
Phobos DOM 861 events 120 cases 23.7 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
108×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
80×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
64×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
62×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
61×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
38×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
34×
Microsoft Word Document 248 events 63 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
932×
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
791×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
499×
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
380×
file
Document1
303×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
264×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
232×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
213×
Acrobat App 200 events 52 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,201 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 139 events 64 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,719 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 123 events 41 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
610×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
378×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
228×
file
I-0000346875
167×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000355770
93×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (1)
57×
file
Priorización
49×
Microsoft Outlook Message 90 events 51 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 41 events 25 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
ONENOTE Document 32 events 19 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
apps.powerapps.com App 27 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.23
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.23
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 39.4 | 71.2m | 16 | 0.94 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2291397 | Analyst 13 | 48.8 | 2.1m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2309302 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 2.2m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2304888 | Analyst 09 | 53.2 | 13.7m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2225437 | Analyst 13 | 53.2 | 47.5m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 4 |
Users on This Task
14 analysts executed this task during the pilot. Scatter plots productivity (instances per active day) against adherence (meta score). Top-right = healthy high-volume analysts; bottom-right = firefighters; top-left = careful low-volume; bottom-left = struggling.
Adherence (meta score) →
Productivity (instances / active day) →
15
04
06
07
08
11
14
01
12
09
03
05
02
13
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
View No Items Found
3
Select Drug Discontinued
4
View No Items Found
5
View Case Assessments
6
Select Unknown Value
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
Select Products
9
Create New Item
10
Select External Product
11
Continue
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 67 | 5.2 | 83.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 428 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 32 of 67 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 67 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 83.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Details Section
3
Open Reference Numbers
4
View E2B Re-Transmittable
5
View Local Reference Number
6
View E2B Re-Transmittable
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Validation Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 8,643 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Open Action Items
3
Select Adverse Events
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 3 | 1.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Products
3
View Reference Numbers
4
View Contacts
5
View Study
6
View Patient
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 4 | 1.0 | 81.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Select Case Assessment Results
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 13 | 2.6 | 81.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 71 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 4 of 13 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 13 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 163 | 10.2 | 80.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4,543 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 72 of 163 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 71 distinct sequences across their 163 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 186 | 14.3 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 2,918 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 71 of 186 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 84 distinct sequences across their 186 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 9 | 1.5 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 20 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 9 instances
1
Open Products Section
This analyst exhibits 7 distinct sequences across their 9 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 74.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 73 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 12 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
tools.meddra.org
3
collaboration.merck.com
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 14 | 1.4 | 70.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.37 | 0.00 | 7,445 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Products Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 14 instances
1
Open Products Section
2
Acrobat
3
Microsoft Word
4
Select Adverse Events
5
Acrobat
6
Microsoft Word
7
Create New Item
8
Acrobat
9
Microsoft Word
10
Acrobat
11
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 14 distinct sequences across their 14 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||