Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Document Management
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 447 instances
Open Document Manager
How 13 analysts execute this task across 251 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
80.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.6–97.5
21.5 min
Avg Task Duration
0.6 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
62.3% have multiple sub-steps
37.7%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
37.7% of instances follow this exactly
Open Document Manager — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 459 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Documents Section
0.0s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Document Manager Reference Path
173 instances · 13 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 173 instances across 13 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Document Manager.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
58 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
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 82.6 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
15 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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 83.0 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +6.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Add Item
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 87.0 vs reference 80.4 (delta +6.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
View Created Date
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.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 7 cases.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 39% 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 Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat 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 +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Open Cases 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
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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 Word
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 2 analysts across 4 cases.
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 Documents 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.
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 | 1,016 | 86.7% | 93.4% |
| Acrobat | 44 | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 16 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 15 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 13 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 10 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 8 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Quality Vault | 3 | 0.3% | 6.6% |
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 | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 15 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 11 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 9 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 9 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 8 |
| Microsoft Excel | Acrobat | 8 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 8 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 7 |
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 4,389 events 251 cases 43.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
484×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
275×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
258×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
222×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
166×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
148×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
116×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
115×
Phobos DOM 648 events 90 cases 20.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
85×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
60×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
53×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
39×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
34×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
33×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
23×
Acrobat App 165 events 43 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,725 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 Word Document 153 events 40 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
361×
file
V-Narrative 540358 (English) (26494608_0_2_342069)
197×
file
V-Narrative 555782 (English) (26733642_0_2_350941)
174×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
173×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
170×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
142×
file
Narrative 547833 (English)
123×
file
V-Narrative 513978 (English) (26062717_0_1_339936)
106×
Microsoft Teams App 87 events 48 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,493 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 58 events 26 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
463×
file
GDMS800-039-001 GPVCM Finding Definitions (1)
26×
file
Priorización
25×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (2)
23×
file
Findings cycle 45 QS
22×
file
Findings cycle 46 QS
19×
file
Query 26-NOV-2025
16×
file
ICSR_009507513_19-11-2025_11-15-21-41
15×
Microsoft Outlook Message 51 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 47 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 33 events 4 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
runtime-app.powerplatform.com App 31 events 2 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.
0.08
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.08
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 0.96
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 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.08
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.08
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2349955 | Analyst 03 | 33.6 | 7.6m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2314923 | Analyst 05 | 55.1 | 9.7m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 1 |
| 2078742 | Analyst 01 | 56.0 | 31.4m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2294929 | Analyst 03 | 57.5 | 6.2m | 6 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2354167 | Analyst 09 | 58.7 | 11.1m | 8 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
13 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) →
14
04
10
07
06
15
03
12
02
05
09
13
01
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 14 | 8 | 4.0 | 83.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 28 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 8 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 6 distinct sequences across their 8 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 126 | 9.7 | 82.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,616 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 31 of 126 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 41 distinct sequences across their 126 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 4 | 4.0 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 134 | 10.3 | 80.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.00 | 7,744 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 79 of 134 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 37 distinct sequences across their 134 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 28 | 3.1 | 80.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 83 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 11 of 28 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 28 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.03 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 12 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 42 | 3.8 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 66 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 42 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 42 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 92 | 7.1 | 77.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 227 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 29 of 92 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 41 distinct sequences across their 92 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 5 | 1.7 | 74.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.30 | 0.00 | 35 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 3 | 1.0 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.6–97.5
21.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.6 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
63.6% have multiple sub-steps
36.4%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
36.4% of instances follow this exactly
Open Document Manager — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 459 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Documents Section
0.0s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Document Manager Reference Path
167 instances · 13 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 167 instances across 13 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Document Manager.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
56 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
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 82.6 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
15 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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 83.0 vs reference 80.4 (delta +2.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +6.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Add Item
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 87.0 vs reference 80.4 (delta +6.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
10 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 9 cases.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
View Created Date
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
7 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Open Cases 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 39% 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 Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat 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 +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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 Word
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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.
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 Documents 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.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 3 cases.
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 | 1,054 | 87.0% | 93.8% |
| Acrobat | 44 | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 16 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 16 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 13 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 12 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 10 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 8 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| newtab | 3 | 0.2% | 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 | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 15 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 12 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 10 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 9 |
| Microsoft Excel | Acrobat | 8 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 8 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 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 4,389 events 251 cases 43.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
484×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
275×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
258×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
222×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
166×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
148×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
116×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
115×
Phobos DOM 648 events 90 cases 20.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
85×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
60×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
53×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
39×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
34×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
33×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
23×
Acrobat App 165 events 43 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,725 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 Word Document 153 events 40 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
361×
file
V-Narrative 540358 (English) (26494608_0_2_342069)
197×
file
V-Narrative 555782 (English) (26733642_0_2_350941)
174×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
173×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
170×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
142×
file
Narrative 547833 (English)
123×
file
V-Narrative 513978 (English) (26062717_0_1_339936)
106×
Microsoft Teams App 87 events 48 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,493 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 58 events 26 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
463×
file
GDMS800-039-001 GPVCM Finding Definitions (1)
26×
file
Priorización
25×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (2)
23×
file
Findings cycle 45 QS
22×
file
Findings cycle 46 QS
19×
file
Query 26-NOV-2025
16×
file
ICSR_009507513_19-11-2025_11-15-21-41
15×
Microsoft Outlook Message 51 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 47 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 33 events 4 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
runtime-app.powerplatform.com App 31 events 2 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.
0.08
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.1
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 0.96
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 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.10
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.08
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2349955 | Analyst 03 | 33.6 | 7.6m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2314923 | Analyst 05 | 55.1 | 9.7m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 1 |
| 2078742 | Analyst 01 | 56.0 | 31.4m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2294929 | Analyst 03 | 57.5 | 6.2m | 6 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2354167 | Analyst 09 | 58.7 | 11.1m | 8 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
13 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) →
14
04
07
10
06
15
03
12
02
05
09
13
01
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 14 | 8 | 4.0 | 83.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 34 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 8 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 6 distinct sequences across their 8 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 126 | 9.7 | 82.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,690 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 28 of 126 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 44 distinct sequences across their 126 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 4 | 4.0 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 134 | 10.3 | 80.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.00 | 7,741 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 79 of 134 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 38 distinct sequences across their 134 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 28 | 3.1 | 80.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 91 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 11 of 28 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 28 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.03 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 12 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 42 | 3.8 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 69 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 42 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 42 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 92 | 7.1 | 77.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 252 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 27 of 92 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 92 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 5 | 1.7 | 74.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.30 | 0.00 | 35 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 3 | 1.0 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.6–97.5
22.1 min
Avg Task Duration
0.6 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
62.6% have multiple sub-steps
37.4%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
37.4% of instances follow this exactly
Open Document Manager — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 447 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Documents Section
0.0s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Document Manager Reference Path
167 instances · 13 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 167 instances across 13 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Document Manager.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
55 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
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 82.6 vs reference 80.4 (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 +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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
10 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +6.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Add Item
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 87.0 vs reference 80.4 (delta +6.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
View Created Date
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.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
7 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 6 cases.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 39% 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 Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat 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 +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Open Cases 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 2 analysts across 4 cases.
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 Documents 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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 | 1,016 | 86.7% | 93.4% |
| Acrobat | 44 | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 16 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 15 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 13 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 10 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 8 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Quality Vault | 3 | 0.3% | 6.6% |
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 | Acrobat | 29 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 15 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 11 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 9 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 9 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 8 |
| Microsoft Excel | Acrobat | 8 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 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 4,389 events 251 cases 43.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
484×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
275×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
258×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
222×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
166×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
148×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
116×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
115×
Phobos DOM 648 events 90 cases 20.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
85×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
60×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
53×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
39×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
34×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
33×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
23×
Acrobat App 165 events 43 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,725 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 Word Document 153 events 40 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
361×
file
V-Narrative 540358 (English) (26494608_0_2_342069)
197×
file
V-Narrative 555782 (English) (26733642_0_2_350941)
174×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
173×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
170×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
142×
file
Narrative 547833 (English)
123×
file
V-Narrative 513978 (English) (26062717_0_1_339936)
106×
Microsoft Teams App 87 events 48 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,493 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 58 events 26 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
463×
file
GDMS800-039-001 GPVCM Finding Definitions (1)
26×
file
Priorización
25×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (2)
23×
file
Findings cycle 45 QS
22×
file
Findings cycle 46 QS
19×
file
Query 26-NOV-2025
16×
file
ICSR_009507513_19-11-2025_11-15-21-41
15×
Microsoft Outlook Message 51 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 47 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 33 events 4 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
runtime-app.powerplatform.com App 31 events 2 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.
0.08
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.11
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 0.96
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 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.11
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.08
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2349955 | Analyst 03 | 33.6 | 7.6m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2314923 | Analyst 05 | 55.1 | 9.7m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 1 |
| 2078742 | Analyst 01 | 56.0 | 31.4m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2294929 | Analyst 03 | 57.5 | 6.2m | 6 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2228145 | Analyst 12 | 58.7 | 4.4m | 8 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
13 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) →
14
04
10
07
06
15
03
12
02
05
09
13
01
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 14 | 8 | 4.0 | 83.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 28 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 8 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 6 distinct sequences across their 8 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 121 | 9.3 | 82.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,618 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 30 of 121 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 42 distinct sequences across their 121 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 4 | 4.0 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 131 | 10.1 | 80.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.00 | 7,749 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 76 of 131 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 38 distinct sequences across their 131 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 28 | 3.1 | 80.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 83 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 11 of 28 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 28 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.03 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 12 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 42 | 3.8 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 66 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 42 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 42 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 88 | 6.8 | 77.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 230 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 27 of 88 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 40 distinct sequences across their 88 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 5 | 1.7 | 74.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.30 | 0.00 | 35 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 3 | 1.0 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.3
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.6–97.5
22.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.6 min median
2.7
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
64.0% have multiple sub-steps
36.0%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
36.0% of instances follow this exactly
Open Document Manager — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 447 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Documents Section
0.0s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Document Manager Reference Path
161 instances · 13 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 161 instances across 13 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Document Manager.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
53 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
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 82.6 vs reference 80.3 (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 +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +6.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Add Item
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 87.0 vs reference 80.3 (delta +6.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
9 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 8 cases.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
View Created Date
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Open Cases 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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -9.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 39% 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 Acrobat
6 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat 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 Word
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Excel
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents 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
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 3 cases.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Documents Section
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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
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 | 1,054 | 87.0% | 93.8% |
| Acrobat | 44 | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 16 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 16 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 13 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 12 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 11 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 10 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 8 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Quality Vault | 3 | 0.2% | 6.2% |
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 | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 15 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 12 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 10 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 9 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 8 |
| Microsoft Excel | Acrobat | 8 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 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 4,389 events 251 cases 43.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Documents"
484×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
275×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
258×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
222×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
166×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
148×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
116×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
115×
Phobos DOM 648 events 90 cases 20.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
85×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
60×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
53×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
39×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
34×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
33×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
23×
Acrobat App 165 events 43 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,725 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 Word Document 153 events 40 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533533 (English) (26384397_0_2_337752)
361×
file
V-Narrative 540358 (English) (26494608_0_2_342069)
197×
file
V-Narrative 555782 (English) (26733642_0_2_350941)
174×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
173×
file
V-Narrative 542162 (English) (26518018_0_1_342783)
170×
file
Narrative 497939 (English)
142×
file
Narrative 547833 (English)
123×
file
V-Narrative 513978 (English) (26062717_0_1_339936)
106×
Microsoft Teams App 87 events 48 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
1,493 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 58 events 26 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
463×
file
GDMS800-039-001 GPVCM Finding Definitions (1)
26×
file
Priorización
25×
file
ICHICSR-EVHUMAN_10020432161 (2)
23×
file
Findings cycle 45 QS
22×
file
Findings cycle 46 QS
19×
file
Query 26-NOV-2025
16×
file
ICSR_009507513_19-11-2025_11-15-21-41
15×
Microsoft Outlook Message 51 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
collaboration.merck.com App 47 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 33 events 4 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
runtime-app.powerplatform.com App 31 events 2 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.
0.08
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
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 0.96
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 0.96
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 0.08
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2349955 | Analyst 03 | 33.6 | 7.6m | 25 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2314923 | Analyst 05 | 55.1 | 9.7m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.16 | 1 |
| 2078742 | Analyst 01 | 56.0 | 31.4m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2294929 | Analyst 03 | 57.5 | 6.2m | 6 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2354167 | Analyst 09 | 58.7 | 11.1m | 8 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 3 |
Users on This Task
13 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) →
14
04
06
10
07
15
03
12
02
05
09
13
01
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 14 | 8 | 4.0 | 83.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 34 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 8 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 6 distinct sequences across their 8 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 121 | 9.3 | 82.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,692 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 27 of 121 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 45 distinct sequences across their 121 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Documents Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 4 | 4.0 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 38 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 131 | 10.1 | 80.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.00 | 7,745 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 76 of 131 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 39 distinct sequences across their 131 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 28 | 3.1 | 80.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.00 | 91 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 11 of 28 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 28 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 12 | 1.7 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.03 | 7 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 12 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 12 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 42 | 3.8 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.00 | 69 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 42 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Sort by Created Date
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 42 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 88 | 6.8 | 77.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 256 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 25 of 88 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 42 distinct sequences across their 88 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 5 | 1.7 | 74.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.30 | 0.00 | 35 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Open Documents Section
2
Acrobat
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 3 | 1.0 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Documents Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Documents Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||