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 470 instances
Select Document Details
How 11 analysts execute this task across 237 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
80.3
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 30.8–97.5
18.1 min
Avg Task Duration
0.3 min median
3.4
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
63.2% have multiple sub-steps
1.0%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.0% of instances follow this exactly
Select Document Details — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 516 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Select Details
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Select Products
0.0s
Veeva Safety
2%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Select Document Details 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 Select Document Details.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
190 instances · 8 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
×
Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Contacts
reference at this step: Select Products
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 83.8 vs reference 80.3 (delta +3.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +8.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Select Products
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 88.8 vs reference 80.3 (delta +8.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +5.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Study
reference at this step: Select Products
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 85.5 vs reference 80.3 (delta +5.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Documents
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +9.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select No
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.3 (delta +9.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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 | 1,482 | 84.1% | 90.7% |
| Microsoft Teams | 45 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 42 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 30 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 24 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 22 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 20 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 18 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 10 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| gpteal.merck.com | 9 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 29 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 25 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 18 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 17 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 16 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 13 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 13 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 12 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 11 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,462 events 237 cases 60.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
531×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
530×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
339×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
274×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Create"
146×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Patient"
125×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
123×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
121×
Phobos DOM 1,055 events 129 cases 30.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
145×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
107×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
56×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
53×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
50×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
37×
Microsoft Word Document 283 events 77 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 534252 (English) (26399499_0_2_343143)
572×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
429×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
320×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
253×
file
V-Narrative 533936 (English) (26397592_0_1_338360)
233×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
226×
Microsoft Teams App 197 events 76 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,391 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 180 events 55 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,565 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 Outlook Message 99 events 49 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
Incorrect article uploaded in CLIC 940845
37×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
Due today reports on 02-DEC-2025
19×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
6×
subj
Due today reports on 26-NOV-2025
4×
Microsoft Excel Document 99 events 52 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
collaboration.merck.com App 86 events 39 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Notepad App 45 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 42 events 8 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.
0.10
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.17
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.17
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2258699 | Analyst 13 | 30.8 | 8.5m | 39 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 18 |
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 45.5 | 0.3m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2314753 | Analyst 01 | 53.8 | 4.4m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2355959 | Analyst 09 | 55.0 | 8.2m | 9 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2350507 | Analyst 09 | 57.0 | 12.3m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
10
16
08
01
03
02
12
13
05
09
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 04 | 23 | 2.6 | 83.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,829 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 13 of 23 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4,260 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Select Details
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 4 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 180 | 12.0 | 81.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 341 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 59 of 180 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 112 distinct sequences across their 180 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 56 | 4.3 | 80.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 64 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 22 of 56 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 56 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 206 | 17.2 | 80.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 752 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 81 of 206 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 104 distinct sequences across their 206 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 5 | 1.2 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.17 | 0.00 | 13 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Select Master Case
4
Select Contacts
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 32 | 3.6 | 74.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 48 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 32 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 22 distinct sequences across their 32 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 2.0 | 72.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.38 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Select Details
2
Submit Text Area
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
Acrobat
5
View Details
6
View Reference Numbers
7
View Contacts
8
Delete Item
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 4 | 1.3 | 62.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.57 | 0.00 | 23 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
View Report Sub Type
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.3
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 30.8–97.5
18.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.3 min median
3.7
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
64.0% have multiple sub-steps
0.8%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
0.8% of instances follow this exactly
Select Document Details — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 516 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Select Details
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Select Products
0.0s
Veeva Safety
2%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Select Document Details Reference Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 4 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Select Document Details.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
186 instances · 8 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
×
Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Contacts
reference at this step: Select Products
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 83.8 vs reference 80.3 (delta +3.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +8.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Select Products
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 88.8 vs reference 80.3 (delta +8.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Documents
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +9.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select No
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.3 (delta +9.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.3 (delta +2.2). 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 | 1,606 | 84.6% | 91.8% |
| Microsoft Teams | 46 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 44 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 33 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 24 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 22 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 21 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 20 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 10 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| gpteal.merck.com | 9 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 29 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 27 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 21 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 16 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 14 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 14 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,462 events 237 cases 60.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
531×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
530×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
339×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
274×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Create"
146×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Patient"
125×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
123×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
121×
Phobos DOM 1,055 events 129 cases 30.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
145×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
107×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
56×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
53×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
50×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
37×
Microsoft Word Document 283 events 77 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 534252 (English) (26399499_0_2_343143)
572×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
429×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
320×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
253×
file
V-Narrative 533936 (English) (26397592_0_1_338360)
233×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
226×
Microsoft Teams App 197 events 76 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,391 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 180 events 55 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,565 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 Outlook Message 99 events 49 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
Incorrect article uploaded in CLIC 940845
37×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
Due today reports on 02-DEC-2025
19×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
6×
subj
Due today reports on 26-NOV-2025
4×
Microsoft Excel Document 99 events 52 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
collaboration.merck.com App 86 events 39 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Notepad App 45 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 42 events 8 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.
0.10
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.92
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.19
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.92
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.
Revisit Depth
value 1.19
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2258699 | Analyst 13 | 30.8 | 8.5m | 39 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 18 |
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 45.5 | 0.3m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2314753 | Analyst 01 | 53.8 | 4.4m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2355959 | Analyst 09 | 55.0 | 8.2m | 9 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2350507 | Analyst 09 | 57.0 | 12.3m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
10
16
08
01
03
02
12
13
05
09
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 04 | 23 | 2.6 | 83.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,846 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 13 of 23 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4,260 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Select Details
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 4 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 180 | 12.0 | 81.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 466 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 56 of 180 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 115 distinct sequences across their 180 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 56 | 4.3 | 80.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 70 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 22 of 56 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 56 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 206 | 17.2 | 80.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 841 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 80 of 206 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 108 distinct sequences across their 206 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 5 | 1.2 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.17 | 0.00 | 13 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Select Master Case
4
Select Contacts
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 32 | 3.6 | 74.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 48 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 32 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 22 distinct sequences across their 32 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 2.0 | 72.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.38 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Select Details
2
Submit Text Area
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
Acrobat
5
View Details
6
View Reference Numbers
7
View Contacts
8
Delete Item
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 4 | 1.3 | 62.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.57 | 0.00 | 23 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
View Report Sub Type
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.1
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 30.8–97.5
19.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.4 min median
3.7
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
62.9% have multiple sub-steps
0.4%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
0.4% of instances follow this exactly
Select Document Details — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 477 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Select Details
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Select Products
0.0s
Veeva Safety
1%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Select Document Details Reference Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 2 instances across 2 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Select Document Details.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
177 instances · 8 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
×
Select Products
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 80.1 (delta +2.8). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +5.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Study
reference at this step: Select Products
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 85.5 vs reference 80.1 (delta +5.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +9.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select No
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.1 (delta +9.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +9.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.1 (delta +9.9). 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 +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Contacts
reference at this step: Select Products
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 85.0 vs reference 80.1 (delta +4.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Validation Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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.
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 | 1,482 | 84.1% | 90.7% |
| Microsoft Teams | 45 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 42 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 30 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 24 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 22 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 20 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 18 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 10 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| gpteal.merck.com | 9 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 29 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 25 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 17 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 13 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 12 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 12 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 12 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,462 events 237 cases 60.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
531×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
530×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
339×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
274×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Create"
146×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Patient"
125×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
123×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
121×
Phobos DOM 1,055 events 129 cases 30.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
145×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
107×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
56×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
53×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
50×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
37×
Microsoft Word Document 283 events 77 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 534252 (English) (26399499_0_2_343143)
572×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
429×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
320×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
253×
file
V-Narrative 533936 (English) (26397592_0_1_338360)
233×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
226×
Microsoft Teams App 197 events 76 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,391 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 180 events 55 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,565 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 Outlook Message 99 events 49 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
Incorrect article uploaded in CLIC 940845
37×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
Due today reports on 02-DEC-2025
19×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
6×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Microsoft Excel Document 99 events 52 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
collaboration.merck.com App 86 events 39 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Notepad App 45 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 42 events 8 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.
0.10
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.92
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 0.92
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.
Revisit Depth
value 1.25
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2258699 | Analyst 13 | 30.8 | 8.5m | 39 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 18 |
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 45.5 | 0.3m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2355959 | Analyst 09 | 55.0 | 8.2m | 9 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2314753 | Analyst 01 | 56.3 | 1.9m | 16 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2350507 | Analyst 09 | 57.0 | 12.3m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
08
10
16
01
03
02
12
13
05
09
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 04 | 23 | 2.6 | 83.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,829 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 13 of 23 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 4 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4,260 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Select Details
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 164 | 10.9 | 81.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.00 | 349 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 55 of 164 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 105 distinct sequences across their 164 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 55 | 4.2 | 80.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 64 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 55 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 55 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 186 | 15.5 | 80.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 768 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 73 of 186 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 101 distinct sequences across their 186 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 5 | 1.2 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.17 | 0.00 | 13 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Select Master Case
4
Select Contacts
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 30 | 3.3 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 51 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 30 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 21 distinct sequences across their 30 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 2.0 | 72.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.38 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Select Details
2
Submit Text Area
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
Acrobat
5
View Details
6
View Reference Numbers
7
View Contacts
8
Delete Item
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 4 | 1.3 | 62.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.57 | 0.00 | 23 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
View Report Sub Type
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.0
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 30.8–97.5
20.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.4 min median
4.0
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
63.2% have multiple sub-steps
0.2%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
0.2% of instances follow this exactly
Select Document Details — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 470 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Select Details
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Select Products
0.0s
Veeva Safety
1%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Select Document Details Reference Path
1 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 1 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Select Document Details.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
173 instances · 8 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
×
Select Products
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 80.0 (delta +2.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.0 (delta +2.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
collaboration.merck.com
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 2 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
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -10.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Select Products
Cross-App Swivel — 3 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
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +10.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select List Item
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.0 (delta +10.0). 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 +2.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Open Case Assessment Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.0 (delta +2.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Reference Numbers
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.0 (delta +2.5). 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 +5.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Contacts
reference at this step: Select Products
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 85.0 vs reference 80.0 (delta +5.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Validation Results
reference at this step: Select Products
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 80.0 (delta +2.5). 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 +5.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select Study
reference at this step: Select Products
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 85.0 vs reference 80.0 (delta +5.0). 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 +10.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Select Details
2
Select No
reference at this step: Select Products
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 90.0 vs reference 80.0 (delta +10.0). 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 | 1,606 | 84.6% | 91.8% |
| Microsoft Teams | 46 | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 44 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 33 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 24 | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 22 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 21 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 20 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 10 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| gpteal.merck.com | 9 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 30 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 25 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 20 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 14 |
| apps.powerapps.com | runtime-app.powerplatform.com | 13 |
| runtime-app.powerplatform.com | apps.powerapps.com | 12 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,462 events 237 cases 60.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
531×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
530×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
339×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
274×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Create"
146×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Patient"
125×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
123×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
121×
Phobos DOM 1,055 events 129 cases 30.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
145×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
107×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
56×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
53×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
50×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
40×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
37×
Microsoft Word Document 283 events 77 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 534252 (English) (26399499_0_2_343143)
572×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
429×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 525025 (English) (26253159_0_3_342205)
320×
file
V-Narrative 549428 (English) (26642399_0_2_349187)
253×
file
V-Narrative 533936 (English) (26397592_0_1_338360)
233×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 552979 (English) (26689105_0_2_348832)
226×
Microsoft Teams App 197 events 76 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,391 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 180 events 55 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,565 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 Outlook Message 99 events 49 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
Incorrect article uploaded in CLIC 940845
37×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
Due today reports on 02-DEC-2025
19×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
6×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Microsoft Excel Document 99 events 52 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
collaboration.merck.com App 86 events 39 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Notepad App 45 events 27 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
apps.powerapps.com App 42 events 8 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.
0.10
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.92
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.29
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.
Revisit Depth
value 1.29
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2258699 | Analyst 13 | 30.8 | 8.5m | 39 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 18 |
| 2347110 | Analyst 03 | 45.5 | 0.3m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2355959 | Analyst 09 | 55.0 | 8.2m | 9 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2314753 | Analyst 01 | 56.3 | 1.9m | 16 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 4 |
| 2350507 | Analyst 09 | 57.0 | 12.3m | 11 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
10
08
16
03
01
02
12
13
05
09
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 04 | 23 | 2.6 | 83.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,846 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 13 of 23 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 11 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4,260 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 08 | 4 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 08's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Select Details
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 55 | 4.2 | 80.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 70 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 55 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 55 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 161 | 10.7 | 80.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 476 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 52 of 161 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 105 distinct sequences across their 161 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 182 | 15.2 | 79.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 857 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 72 of 182 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 100 distinct sequences across their 182 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 5 | 1.2 | 79.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.17 | 0.00 | 13 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 5 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Select Master Case
4
Select Contacts
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 5 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 30 | 3.3 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.27 | 0.00 | 51 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 30 instances
1
Select Details
This analyst exhibits 21 distinct sequences across their 30 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 2.0 | 72.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.38 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Select Details
2
Submit Text Area
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
Acrobat
5
View Details
6
View Reference Numbers
7
View Contacts
8
Delete Item
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 4 | 1.3 | 62.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.57 | 0.00 | 23 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Select Details
2
Select Products
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 4 instances
1
Select Details
2
Microsoft Teams
· reference: Select Products
3
Microsoft Word
4
View Report Sub Type
This analyst exhibits 4 distinct sequences across their 4 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||