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 8 instances
Review Pre-Routing Queue
How 3 analysts execute this task across 5 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
82.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 80.0–82.5
0.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
12.5% have multiple sub-steps
87.5%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.5% of instances follow this exactly
Review Pre-Routing Queue — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 8 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
0.0s
Phobos
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Pre-Routing Queue Reference Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 7 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Pre-Routing Queue.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
2
View Global Routing
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 1 cases.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 10 | 100.0% | 0.0% |
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 22 events 4 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
3×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Case Entry · Show less · 24 Nov 2025 · Instructions · · Pl"
2×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
2×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Products (3)"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Name · Primary · Rank · Event (Reported) · Event (Reporte"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Primary Reporter Provided Consent · Unknown · Transmi"
1×
Phobos DOM 21 events 5 cases 1.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
inputld
<select>
"= · != · < · >"
5×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
4×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
3×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Release cases (1)"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Remaining cases: 1"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Route to Pre DMC >>"
1×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Pre-routing"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Routed to DMC: 0"
1×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
10 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 1 events 1 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
Case tracking list
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.00
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
1.00
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.12
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 1.00
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 1.00
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.12
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 80.0 | 1.4m | 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2352671 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 82.5 | 0.1m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2352671 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 1.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
3 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) →
10
09
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 10 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 3 | 3.0 | 81.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 80.0–82.5
0.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
12.5% have multiple sub-steps
87.5%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.5% of instances follow this exactly
Review Pre-Routing Queue — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 8 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
0.0s
Phobos
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Pre-Routing Queue Reference Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 7 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Pre-Routing Queue.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
2
View Global Routing
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 1 cases.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 10 | 100.0% | 0.0% |
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 22 events 4 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
3×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Case Entry · Show less · 24 Nov 2025 · Instructions · · Pl"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Name · Condition / Procedure (Reported) · Condition /"
1×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Adverse Events"
1×
Phobos DOM 21 events 5 cases 1.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
inputld
<select>
"= · != · < · >"
5×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
4×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
3×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Release cases (1)"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Remaining cases: 1"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Route to Pre DMC >>"
1×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Pre-routing"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Routed to DMC: 0"
1×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
10 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 1 events 1 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
Case tracking list
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.00
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
1.00
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.12
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 1.00
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 1.00
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.12
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 80.0 | 1.4m | 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2352671 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 82.5 | 0.1m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2352671 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 1.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2329445 | Analyst 09 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
3 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
10
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 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 3 | 3.0 | 81.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 80.0–82.5
0.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
12.5% have multiple sub-steps
87.5%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.5% of instances follow this exactly
Review Pre-Routing Queue — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 8 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
0.0s
Phobos
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Pre-Routing Queue Reference Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 7 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Pre-Routing Queue.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
2
View Global Routing
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 1 cases.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 10 | 100.0% | 0.0% |
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 22 events 4 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
3×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Case Entry · Show less · 24 Nov 2025 · Instructions · · Pl"
2×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
2×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Products (3)"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Name · Primary · Rank · Event (Reported) · Event (Reporte"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Primary Reporter Provided Consent · Unknown · Transmi"
1×
Phobos DOM 21 events 5 cases 1.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
inputld
<select>
"= · != · < · >"
5×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
4×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
3×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Release cases (1)"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Remaining cases: 1"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Route to Pre DMC >>"
1×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Pre-routing"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Routed to DMC: 0"
1×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
10 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 1 events 1 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
Case tracking list
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.00
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
1.00
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.12
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 1.00
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 1.00
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.12
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 80.0 | 1.4m | 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2349786 | Analyst 09 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2352671 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2329445 | Analyst 09 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
3 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) →
10
09
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 10 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 3 | 3.0 | 81.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 80.0–82.5
0.4 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
12.5% have multiple sub-steps
87.5%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
87.5% of instances follow this exactly
Review Pre-Routing Queue — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 8 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
0.0s
Phobos
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Review Pre-Routing Queue Reference Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 7 instances across 3 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Review Pre-Routing Queue.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
2
View Global Routing
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 3.0 avg sub-steps and zero edits captured. Consistent with a downstream reviewer re-opening the task to verify earlier work rather than progressing new data. 1 analysts across 1 cases.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phobos | 10 | 100.0% | 0.0% |
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 22 events 4 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
3×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Patient"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Case Entry · Show less · 24 Nov 2025 · Instructions · · Pl"
2×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Name · Condition / Procedure (Reported) · Condition /"
1×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
1×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Adverse Events"
1×
Phobos DOM 21 events 5 cases 1.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
inputld
<select>
"= · != · < · >"
5×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
4×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Inbox"
3×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Release cases (1)"
2×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Routed to DMC: 790"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Release cases (55)"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Route to DMC >>"
1×
inputld
<select>
"LIKE · = · !="
1×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
10 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 1 events 1 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
Case tracking list
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.00
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
1.00
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.12
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 1.00
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 1.00
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.12
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 80.0 | 1.4m | 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2329445 | Analyst 09 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2352344 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2342597 | Analyst 02 | 82.5 | 0.1m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2349786 | Analyst 09 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
3 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
10
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 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 3 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 3 | 3.0 | 81.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
View Intake Pre-Routing
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||