Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Intake
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 1,378 instances
Receive Intake
How 8 analysts execute this task across 431 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
86.9
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.3–97.5
14.9 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
15.8% have multiple sub-steps
84.2%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
84.2% of instances follow this exactly
Receive Intake — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 1,586 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Phobos Activity
3.7s
Phobos
98%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Receive Intake Reference Path
1,336 instances · 8 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 1,336 instances across 8 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Receive Intake.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
89 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -0.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Add New Case
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 86.1 vs reference 86.9 (delta -0.8). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
16 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Worklist
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 82.3 vs reference 86.9 (delta -4.5). 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 +5.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Select Compound
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 92.5 vs reference 86.9 (delta +5.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Start Approval Workflow
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 +6.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Re-Route Case
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 93.8 vs reference 86.9 (delta +6.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -19.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Inbox
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Initiate Case Voiding
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Start Action
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos during this task (30% of task time in non-primary apps, 33% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 1,733 | 83.0% | 96.4% |
| Veeva Safety | 221 | 10.6% | 3.3% |
| RIM Vault | 41 | 2.0% | 0.2% |
| Microsoft Word | 19 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 12 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 10 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 5 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 89 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| Phobos | collaboration.merck.com | 7 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Teams | 6 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Outlook | 6 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 5 |
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 7,359 events 400 cases 106.9 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
984×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
362×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
260×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
225×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
203×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
191×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Approval Complete"
171×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
144×
Phobos DOM 5,560 events 431 cases 148.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
648×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
404×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
374×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
319×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
313×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
272×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
204×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
194×
Microsoft Word Document 317 events 106 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
659×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 553023 (English) (26689066_0_2_351253)
247×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 545329 (English) (26567747_0_2_344796)
215×
file
V-Narrative 538518 (English) (26459147_0_1_344628)
198×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
197×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
Acrobat App 227 events 71 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,776 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 183 events 97 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,082 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.
collaboration.merck.com App 131 events 57 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
982 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 128 events 59 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Microsoft Outlook Message 126 events 75 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
RIM Vault DOM 64 events 6 cases 0.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 55 events 13 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.60
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.04
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.01
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 0.60
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 0.60
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.04
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2351145 | Analyst 05 | 33.3 | 4.7m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.43 | 6 |
| 2349482 | Analyst 02 | 45.6 | 7.2m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 2 |
| 2344942 | Analyst 13 | 46.3 | 4.0m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 46.5 | 2.4m | 7 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 1 |
| 2347380 | Analyst 05 | 49.7 | 7.8m | 13 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 4 |
Users on This Task
8 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) →
09
12
03
13
01
10
05
02
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 09 | 170 | 10.6 | 90.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 7,110 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 152 of 170 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 170 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 168 | 18.7 | 87.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.01 | 177 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 126 of 168 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 17 distinct sequences across their 168 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 272 | 20.9 | 87.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.01 | 2,390 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 220 of 272 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 272 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 163 | 14.8 | 86.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.01 | 103 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 120 of 163 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 27 distinct sequences across their 163 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 267 | 17.8 | 86.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.01 | 114 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 228 of 267 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 267 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 303 | 30.3 | 86.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 70 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 303 of 303 instances
1
Phobos Activity
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 123 | 11.2 | 84.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.02 | 13,630 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 106 of 123 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 123 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 120 | 15.0 | 83.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.09 | 0.00 | 59 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 81 of 120 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 21 distinct sequences across their 120 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
86.8
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 33.3–97.5
14.9 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
16.0% have multiple sub-steps
84.0%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
84.0% of instances follow this exactly
Receive Intake — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 1,586 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Phobos Activity
3.9s
Phobos
98%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Receive Intake Reference Path
1,332 instances · 8 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 1,332 instances across 8 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Receive Intake.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
67 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -0.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Add New Case
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 86.4 vs reference 86.8 (delta -0.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
18 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -0.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Add New Case
reference at this step: Phobos Activity
2
Phobos Activity
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 86.2 vs reference 86.8 (delta -0.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
15 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -4.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Worklist
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 82.3 vs reference 86.8 (delta -4.5). 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 +5.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Select Compound
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 92.5 vs reference 86.8 (delta +5.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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 · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Re-Route Case
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 93.8 vs reference 86.8 (delta +7.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -19.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Inbox
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Validation Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 1,733 | 81.6% | 96.0% |
| Veeva Safety | 252 | 11.9% | 3.7% |
| RIM Vault | 41 | 1.9% | 0.2% |
| Microsoft Word | 19 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 11 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 5 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 93 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| Phobos | collaboration.merck.com | 7 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Teams | 6 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Outlook | 6 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 5 |
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 7,359 events 400 cases 106.9 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
984×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
362×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
260×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
225×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
203×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
191×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Approval Complete"
171×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
144×
Phobos DOM 5,560 events 431 cases 148.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
648×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
404×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
374×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
319×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
313×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
272×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
204×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
194×
Microsoft Word Document 317 events 106 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
659×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 553023 (English) (26689066_0_2_351253)
247×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 545329 (English) (26567747_0_2_344796)
215×
file
V-Narrative 538518 (English) (26459147_0_1_344628)
198×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
197×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
Acrobat App 227 events 71 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,776 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 183 events 97 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,082 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.
collaboration.merck.com App 131 events 57 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
982 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 128 events 59 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Microsoft Outlook Message 126 events 75 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
RIM Vault DOM 64 events 6 cases 0.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 55 events 13 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.60
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.04
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.01
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 0.60
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 0.60
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.04
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2351145 | Analyst 05 | 33.3 | 4.7m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.43 | 6 |
| 2349482 | Analyst 02 | 45.6 | 7.2m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 2 |
| 2344942 | Analyst 13 | 46.3 | 4.0m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 46.5 | 2.4m | 7 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 1 |
| 2347380 | Analyst 05 | 49.7 | 7.8m | 13 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 4 |
Users on This Task
8 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) →
09
03
12
10
13
01
05
02
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 09 | 170 | 10.6 | 90.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 7,110 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 152 of 170 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 170 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 272 | 20.9 | 87.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.01 | 2,390 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 220 of 272 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 23 distinct sequences across their 272 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 168 | 18.7 | 87.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.01 | 200 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 125 of 168 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 168 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 303 | 30.3 | 86.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 70 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 303 of 303 instances
1
Phobos Activity
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 163 | 14.8 | 86.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.02 | 109 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 118 of 163 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 163 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 267 | 17.8 | 86.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.01 | 123 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 228 of 267 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 32 distinct sequences across their 267 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 123 | 11.2 | 84.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.02 | 13,630 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 106 of 123 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 123 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 120 | 15.0 | 83.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 76 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 80 of 120 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 25 distinct sequences across their 120 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
86.5
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.7–97.5
17.1 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
18.9% have multiple sub-steps
87.6%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.6% of instances follow this exactly
Receive Intake — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 1,384 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Phobos Activity
3.8s
Phobos
99%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Receive Intake Reference Path
1,213 instances · 8 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 1,213 instances across 8 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Receive Intake.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
14 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -4.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Worklist
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 82.3 vs reference 86.5 (delta -4.2). 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 +6.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Select Compound
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 92.5 vs reference 86.5 (delta +6.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Start Approval Workflow
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 +7.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Re-Route Case
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 93.8 vs reference 86.5 (delta +7.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -19.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Inbox
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Phobos
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Initiate Case Voiding
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Start Action
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos during this task (30% of task time in non-primary apps, 33% 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
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 1,733 | 83.0% | 96.4% |
| Veeva Safety | 221 | 10.6% | 3.3% |
| RIM Vault | 41 | 2.0% | 0.2% |
| Microsoft Word | 19 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 12 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 10 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 5 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 89 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| Phobos | collaboration.merck.com | 7 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Teams | 6 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Outlook | 6 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
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 7,359 events 400 cases 106.9 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
984×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
362×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
260×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
225×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
203×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
191×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Approval Complete"
171×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
144×
Phobos DOM 5,560 events 431 cases 148.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
648×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
404×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
374×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
319×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
313×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
272×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
204×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
194×
Microsoft Word Document 317 events 106 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
659×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 553023 (English) (26689066_0_2_351253)
247×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 545329 (English) (26567747_0_2_344796)
215×
file
V-Narrative 538518 (English) (26459147_0_1_344628)
198×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
197×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
Acrobat App 227 events 71 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,776 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 183 events 97 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,082 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.
collaboration.merck.com App 131 events 57 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
982 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 128 events 59 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Microsoft Outlook Message 126 events 75 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
RIM Vault DOM 64 events 6 cases 0.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 55 events 13 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.59
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.17
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.01
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 0.59
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 0.59
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 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2351145 | Analyst 05 | 39.7 | 5.3m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.32 | 6 |
| 2349482 | Analyst 02 | 45.6 | 7.2m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 2 |
| 2344942 | Analyst 13 | 46.3 | 4.0m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 46.5 | 2.4m | 7 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 1 |
| 2347380 | Analyst 05 | 49.7 | 7.8m | 13 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 4 |
Users on This Task
8 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) →
09
12
03
01
13
10
05
02
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 09 | 166 | 10.4 | 90.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 7,110 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 148 of 166 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 166 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 129 | 14.3 | 87.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.01 | 178 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 109 of 129 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 129 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 225 | 17.3 | 87.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.01 | 2,390 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 197 of 225 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 23 distinct sequences across their 225 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 241 | 16.1 | 86.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.01 | 115 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 209 of 241 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 31 distinct sequences across their 241 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 146 | 13.3 | 86.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.02 | 102 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 113 of 146 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 28 distinct sequences across their 146 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 267 | 26.7 | 86.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 91 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 267 of 267 instances
1
Phobos Activity
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 118 | 10.7 | 84.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.02 | 13,633 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 101 of 118 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 118 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 92 | 11.5 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.12 | 0.01 | 60 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 69 of 92 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 22 distinct sequences across their 92 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
86.4
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 39.7–97.5
17.2 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
19.7% have multiple sub-steps
87.4%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.4% of instances follow this exactly
Receive Intake — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 1,378 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Phobos Activity
3.8s
Phobos
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Receive Intake Reference Path
1,204 instances · 8 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 1,204 instances across 8 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Receive Intake.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
14 instances · 5 analysts
· Δ adherence -4.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Worklist
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 82.3 vs reference 86.4 (delta -4.1). 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 +6.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Select Compound
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 92.5 vs reference 86.4 (delta +6.1). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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 +7.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Re-Route Case
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 93.8 vs reference 86.4 (delta +7.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Outlook
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
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 Veeva Safety
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -18.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Navigate to Inbox
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
View Validation Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Veeva Safety
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Start Approval Workflow
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Veeva Safety 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 Phobos
3 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Phobos Activity
2
Initiate Case Voiding
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Start Action
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Phobos during this task (30% of task time in non-primary apps, 33% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 1,733 | 81.6% | 96.0% |
| Veeva Safety | 252 | 11.9% | 3.7% |
| RIM Vault | 41 | 1.9% | 0.2% |
| Microsoft Word | 19 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 14 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 11 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 5 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 93 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 9 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 7 |
| Phobos | collaboration.merck.com | 7 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Outlook | 6 |
| Phobos | Microsoft Teams | 6 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
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 7,359 events 400 cases 106.9 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
984×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
362×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
260×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
225×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
203×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Details"
191×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Approval Complete"
171×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
144×
Phobos DOM 5,560 events 431 cases 148.6 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
648×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
404×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
374×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
319×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
313×
inputld
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
272×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
204×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
194×
Microsoft Word Document 317 events 106 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 533164 (English) (26378749_0_4_342805)
659×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 553023 (English) (26689066_0_2_351253)
247×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
225×
file
V-Narrative 545329 (English) (26567747_0_2_344796)
215×
file
V-Narrative 538518 (English) (26459147_0_1_344628)
198×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
197×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
Acrobat App 227 events 71 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,776 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Teams App 183 events 97 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,082 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.
collaboration.merck.com App 131 events 57 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
982 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 128 events 59 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Microsoft Outlook Message 126 events 75 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
RIM Vault DOM 64 events 6 cases 0.4 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
usc-excel.officeapps.live.com Document 55 events 13 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.59
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.18
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.01
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 0.59
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 0.59
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.18
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2351145 | Analyst 05 | 39.7 | 5.3m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.32 | 6 |
| 2349482 | Analyst 02 | 45.6 | 7.2m | 8 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 2 |
| 2344942 | Analyst 13 | 46.3 | 4.0m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 46.5 | 2.4m | 7 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 1 |
| 2347380 | Analyst 05 | 49.7 | 7.8m | 13 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 4 |
Users on This Task
8 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) →
09
12
03
01
10
13
05
02
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 09 | 166 | 10.4 | 90.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.03 | 0.00 | 7,110 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 148 of 166 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 8 distinct sequences across their 166 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 129 | 14.3 | 87.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.01 | 200 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 109 of 129 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 129 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 225 | 17.3 | 87.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.04 | 0.01 | 2,389 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 197 of 225 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 24 distinct sequences across their 225 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 241 | 16.1 | 86.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.07 | 0.01 | 124 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 209 of 241 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 32 distinct sequences across their 241 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 261 | 26.1 | 86.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 125 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 261 of 261 instances
1
Phobos Activity
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 146 | 13.3 | 85.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.11 | 0.02 | 109 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 111 of 146 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 30 distinct sequences across their 146 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 118 | 10.7 | 84.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.02 | 13,633 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 101 of 118 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 18 distinct sequences across their 118 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 92 | 11.5 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.13 | 0.01 | 77 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Phobos Activity
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 68 of 92 instances
1
Phobos Activity
This analyst exhibits 23 distinct sequences across their 92 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||