Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Case Review
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 373 instances
Review SAE Case
How 11 analysts execute this task across 168 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
80.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 31.1–97.5
11.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.4 min median
3.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
67.7% have multiple sub-steps
1.2%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.2% of instances follow this exactly
Review SAE Case — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 498 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View SAE Case
0.5s
0.2 edits
Veeva Safety
99%
2
Microsoft Excel
0.0s
Microsoft Excel
5%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review SAE Case Reference Path
6 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 6 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review SAE Case.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
161 instances · 10 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
×
Microsoft Excel
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.2 vs reference 80.2 (delta +3.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Unknown Value
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
3
Select Not Assessed
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 2 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.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +11.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Unknown
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 91.7 vs reference 80.2 (delta +11.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 90.9 vs reference 80.2 (delta +10.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
7 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Worklist
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos 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 · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Highlighted Serious
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 91.1 vs reference 80.2 (delta +10.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Navigate to Cases
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 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
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 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 · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Not Assessed Status
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
3
Select Unknown Value
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 2 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.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Preview Japanese Narrative
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.1 vs reference 80.2 (delta +7.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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 | 1,173 | 74.2% | 91.4% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 69 | 4.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 51 | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 46 | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 43 | 2.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 38 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 38 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 15 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 | 0.8% | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| collaboration.merck.com | usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 34 |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | collaboration.merck.com | 33 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 32 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 16 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 16 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 15 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 15 |
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 4,539 events 168 cases 49.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
273×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
196×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
173×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Continue"
161×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
157×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Delete"
143×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Unknown"
133×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
127×
Phobos DOM 739 events 84 cases 19.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
76×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
52×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
48×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
44×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
38×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
35×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
34×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
28×
Microsoft Word Document 144 events 43 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)
1453×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
636×
file
V-Narrative 549550 (English) (26643764_0_1_347593)
526×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
211×
file
V-Narrative 546801 (English) (26597391_0_2_345463)
187×
file
V-Narrative 541572 (English) (26508302_0_1_342423)
174×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
168×
Microsoft Teams App 136 events 49 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,688 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.
Acrobat App 123 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,574 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 105 events 48 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Case tracking list
450×
file
Priorización
407×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000350382
142×
file
I-0000353124
142×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
125×
file
I-0000355770
93×
collaboration.merck.com App 103 events 40 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 56 events 33 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 44 events 6 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
ONENOTE Document 26 events 17 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.13
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.86
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.25
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 0.86
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 0.86
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.13
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.25
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2352357 | Analyst 05 | 31.1 | 1.0m | 27 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 13 |
| 2261134 | Analyst 13 | 31.4 | 18.6m | 43 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 14 |
| 2345605 | Analyst 13 | 33.6 | 3.4m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 10 |
| 2345589 | Analyst 13 | 38.3 | 0.6m | 18 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 8 |
| 2292251 | Analyst 13 | 38.9 | 8.7m | 23 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 8 |
Users on This Task
11 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) →
11
01
04
03
02
08
09
10
12
05
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 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
View Reference Numbers
· reference: Microsoft Excel
3
View Contacts
4
View Patient
5
View Adverse Events
6
View Products
7
View Medical History
8
View Case Assessments
9
Select Unknown Value
10
Select Rechallenge Not Applicable
11
View Case Assessment Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 128 | 9.8 | 84.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.00 | 844 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 28 of 128 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 70 distinct sequences across their 128 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 51 | 5.7 | 84.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 112 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 24 of 51 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 22 distinct sequences across their 51 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 12 | 4.0 | 82.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 411 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 109 | 9.1 | 80.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 842 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 39 of 109 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 64 distinct sequences across their 109 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 23 | 4.6 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 26 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 23 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 93 | 7.2 | 79.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.18 | 0.00 | 3,134 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 28 of 93 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 59 distinct sequences across their 93 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 5 | 1.7 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 5 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 6 | 1.2 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 9 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 6 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 6 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 12 | 2.4 | 76.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 27 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 58 | 5.8 | 69.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.36 | 0.00 | 232 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 18 of 58 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 37 distinct sequences across their 58 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.1
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 31.4–97.5
11.7 min
Avg Task Duration
0.5 min median
3.4
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
68.7% have multiple sub-steps
1.2%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.2% of instances follow this exactly
Review SAE Case — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 498 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View SAE Case
0.5s
0.2 edits
Veeva Safety
99%
2
Microsoft Excel
0.0s
Microsoft Excel
5%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review SAE Case Reference Path
6 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 6 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review SAE Case.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
156 instances · 10 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
×
Microsoft Excel
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.1 vs reference 80.1 (delta +3.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Unknown Value
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
3
Select Not Assessed
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 2 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
9 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +11.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Unknown
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 91.7 vs reference 80.1 (delta +11.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 90.9 vs reference 80.1 (delta +10.8). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
7 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Worklist
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos 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 · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +11.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Highlighted Serious
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 91.1 vs reference 80.1 (delta +11.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Navigate to Cases
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 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 collaboration.merck.com
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com 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
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 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
5 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Not Assessed Status
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
3
Select Unknown Value
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (3 sub-steps vs 2 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 · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +8.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Preview Japanese Narrative
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.1 vs reference 80.1 (delta +8.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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 | 1,236 | 73.9% | 87.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 70 | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 53 | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 52 | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 51 | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 43 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 42 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 17 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 15 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 | 0.8% | 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 Excel | 34 |
| collaboration.merck.com | usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 30 |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | collaboration.merck.com | 30 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 20 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 18 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 15 |
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 4,539 events 168 cases 49.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
273×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
196×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
173×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Continue"
161×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
157×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Delete"
143×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Unknown"
133×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
127×
Phobos DOM 739 events 84 cases 19.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
76×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
52×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
48×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
44×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
38×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
35×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
34×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
28×
Microsoft Word Document 144 events 43 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)
1453×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
636×
file
V-Narrative 549550 (English) (26643764_0_1_347593)
526×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
211×
file
V-Narrative 546801 (English) (26597391_0_2_345463)
187×
file
V-Narrative 541572 (English) (26508302_0_1_342423)
174×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
168×
Microsoft Teams App 136 events 49 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,688 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.
Acrobat App 123 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,574 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 105 events 48 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Case tracking list
450×
file
Priorización
407×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000350382
142×
file
I-0000353124
142×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
125×
file
I-0000355770
93×
collaboration.merck.com App 103 events 40 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 56 events 33 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 44 events 6 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
ONENOTE Document 26 events 17 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.13
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.86
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.28
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 0.86
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 0.86
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.13
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.28
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2261134 | Analyst 13 | 31.4 | 18.6m | 43 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 14 |
| 2352357 | Analyst 05 | 32.1 | 10.2m | 29 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 13 |
| 2345605 | Analyst 13 | 33.6 | 3.4m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 10 |
| 2345589 | Analyst 13 | 38.3 | 0.6m | 18 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 8 |
| 2292251 | Analyst 13 | 38.9 | 8.7m | 23 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 8 |
Users on This Task
11 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) →
11
01
04
03
02
08
09
10
12
05
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 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
View Reference Numbers
· reference: Microsoft Excel
3
View Contacts
4
View Patient
5
View Adverse Events
6
View Products
7
View Medical History
8
View Case Assessments
9
Select Unknown Value
10
Select Rechallenge Not Applicable
11
View Case Assessment Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 128 | 9.8 | 84.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.00 | 874 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 28 of 128 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 71 distinct sequences across their 128 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 51 | 5.7 | 84.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 127 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 23 of 51 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 22 distinct sequences across their 51 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 12 | 4.0 | 82.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 411 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 109 | 9.1 | 80.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 902 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 39 of 109 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 64 distinct sequences across their 109 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 23 | 4.6 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 26 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 23 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
· reference: Microsoft Excel
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 93 | 7.2 | 78.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 3,190 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 25 of 93 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 62 distinct sequences across their 93 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 5 | 1.7 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 5 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 6 | 1.2 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 9 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 6 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 6 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 12 | 2.4 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 36 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 58 | 5.8 | 69.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.36 | 0.00 | 242 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 18 of 58 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 37 distinct sequences across their 58 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
78.0
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 31.1–97.5
14.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.7 min median
4.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
63.9% have multiple sub-steps
1.3%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.3% of instances follow this exactly
Review SAE Case — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 379 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View SAE Case
0.5s
0.2 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Microsoft Excel
0.0s
Microsoft Excel
6%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review SAE Case Reference Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 5 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review SAE Case.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
137 instances · 10 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
×
Microsoft Excel
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.9 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com 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
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Navigate to Cases
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Worklist
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos 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
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Preview Japanese Narrative
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.1 vs reference 78.0 (delta +10.1). 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 +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Patient
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). 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 +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Cases Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Quality Vault
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -6.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Quality Vault Activity
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Quality Vault 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 1 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
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Show More Details
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.0 (delta +4.5). 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 | 1,173 | 74.2% | 91.4% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 69 | 4.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 51 | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 46 | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 43 | 2.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 38 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 38 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 15 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 | 0.8% | 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 Excel | 33 |
| collaboration.merck.com | usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 32 |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | collaboration.merck.com | 31 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 19 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 18 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 15 |
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 4,539 events 168 cases 49.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
273×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
196×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
173×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Continue"
161×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
157×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Delete"
143×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Unknown"
133×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
127×
Phobos DOM 739 events 84 cases 19.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
76×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
52×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
48×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
44×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
38×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
35×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
34×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
28×
Microsoft Word Document 144 events 43 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)
1453×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
636×
file
V-Narrative 549550 (English) (26643764_0_1_347593)
526×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
211×
file
V-Narrative 546801 (English) (26597391_0_2_345463)
187×
file
V-Narrative 541572 (English) (26508302_0_1_342423)
174×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
168×
Microsoft Teams App 136 events 49 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,688 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.
Acrobat App 123 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,574 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 105 events 48 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Case tracking list
450×
file
Priorización
407×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000353124
142×
file
I-0000350382
142×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
125×
file
I-0000355770
93×
collaboration.merck.com App 103 events 40 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 56 events 33 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 44 events 6 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
ONENOTE Document 26 events 17 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.14
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.92
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.58
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 0.92
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 0.92
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.14
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.58
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2352357 | Analyst 05 | 31.1 | 1.0m | 27 | 0.96 | 0.00 | 13 |
| 2261134 | Analyst 13 | 31.4 | 18.6m | 43 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 14 |
| 2345605 | Analyst 13 | 33.6 | 3.4m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 10 |
| 2345589 | Analyst 13 | 38.3 | 0.6m | 18 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 8 |
| 2292251 | Analyst 13 | 38.9 | 8.7m | 23 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 8 |
Users on This Task
11 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) →
11
04
03
02
08
01
10
12
05
09
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 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
View Reference Numbers
· reference: Microsoft Excel
3
View Contacts
4
View Patient
5
View Adverse Events
6
View Products
7
View Medical History
8
View Case Assessments
9
Select Unknown Value
10
Select Rechallenge Not Applicable
11
View Case Assessment Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 41 | 4.6 | 83.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 113 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 20 of 41 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 41 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 12 | 4.0 | 82.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 411 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 93 | 7.8 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 808 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 35 of 93 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 53 distinct sequences across their 93 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 23 | 4.6 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 26 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 23 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 65 | 5.0 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 846 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 19 of 65 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 46 distinct sequences across their 65 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 5 | 1.7 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 5 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 6 | 1.2 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 9 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 6 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 6 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 12 | 2.4 | 76.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 27 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 71 | 5.5 | 76.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.21 | 0.00 | 3,138 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 23 of 71 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 50 | 5.0 | 69.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.35 | 0.00 | 235 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 50 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 33 distinct sequences across their 50 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
77.8
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 31.4–97.5
15.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.8 min median
4.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
64.6% have multiple sub-steps
1.3%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.3% of instances follow this exactly
Review SAE Case — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 373 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View SAE Case
0.6s
0.2 edits
Veeva Safety
99%
2
Microsoft Excel
0.0s
Microsoft Excel
6%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review SAE Case Reference Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 5 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review SAE Case.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
132 instances · 10 analysts
· Δ adherence +5.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
×
Microsoft Excel
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.0 vs reference 77.8 (delta +5.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
View Worklist
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com 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
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). 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 +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Navigate to Cases
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Preview Japanese Narrative
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.1 vs reference 77.8 (delta +10.3). 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 +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Cases Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Cross-App Swivel — 1 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.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Show More Details
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Select Validation Results
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Test Results Section
reference at this step: Microsoft Excel
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 77.8 (delta +4.7). 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 | 1,236 | 73.9% | 87.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 70 | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 53 | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 52 | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 51 | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 43 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 42 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 17 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 15 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 | 0.8% | 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 Excel | 34 |
| collaboration.merck.com | usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 34 |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | collaboration.merck.com | 33 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 20 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 18 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 16 |
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 4,539 events 168 cases 49.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
273×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
196×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
173×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Continue"
161×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
157×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Delete"
143×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Unknown"
133×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
127×
Phobos DOM 739 events 84 cases 19.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
76×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
52×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
48×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
44×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
38×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
35×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
34×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
28×
Microsoft Word Document 144 events 43 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)
1453×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
636×
file
V-Narrative 549550 (English) (26643764_0_1_347593)
526×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
211×
file
V-Narrative 546801 (English) (26597391_0_2_345463)
187×
file
V-Narrative 541572 (English) (26508302_0_1_342423)
174×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
168×
Microsoft Teams App 136 events 49 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,688 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.
Acrobat App 123 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,574 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 105 events 48 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Case tracking list
450×
file
Priorización
407×
file
I-0000354334
153×
file
I-0000353124
142×
file
I-0000350382
142×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
125×
file
I-0000355770
93×
collaboration.merck.com App 103 events 40 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 56 events 33 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 44 events 6 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
ONENOTE Document 26 events 17 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.15
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.92
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.63
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 0.92
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 0.92
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.15
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.63
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2261134 | Analyst 13 | 31.4 | 18.6m | 43 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 14 |
| 2352357 | Analyst 05 | 32.1 | 10.2m | 29 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 13 |
| 2345605 | Analyst 13 | 33.6 | 3.4m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 10 |
| 2345589 | Analyst 13 | 38.3 | 0.6m | 18 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 8 |
| 2292251 | Analyst 13 | 38.9 | 8.7m | 23 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 8 |
Users on This Task
11 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) →
11
04
03
02
01
08
10
12
05
09
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 11 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
View Reference Numbers
· reference: Microsoft Excel
3
View Contacts
4
View Patient
5
View Adverse Events
6
View Products
7
View Medical History
8
View Case Assessments
9
Select Unknown Value
10
Select Rechallenge Not Applicable
11
View Case Assessment Results
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 41 | 4.6 | 83.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 129 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 19 of 41 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 41 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 12 | 4.0 | 82.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 411 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 91 | 7.6 | 80.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 868 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 35 of 91 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 52 distinct sequences across their 91 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 63 | 4.8 | 79.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 876 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 19 of 63 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 44 distinct sequences across their 63 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 22 | 4.4 | 79.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 26 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 22 instances
1
View SAE Case
2
Open Patient Section
· reference: Microsoft Excel
This analyst exhibits 12 distinct sequences across their 22 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 5 | 1.7 | 77.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 5 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 6 | 1.2 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 9 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 6 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 6 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 12 | 2.4 | 77.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 36 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 12 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 70 | 5.4 | 75.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.23 | 0.00 | 3,198 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 20 of 70 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 45 distinct sequences across their 70 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 50 | 5.0 | 69.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.36 | 0.00 | 245 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View SAE Case
2
Microsoft Excel
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 50 instances
1
View SAE Case
This analyst exhibits 33 distinct sequences across their 50 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||