Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Narrative
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 318 instances
Open Narrative Document
How 8 analysts execute this task across 143 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
78.9
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 44.6–97.5
3.2 min
Avg Task Duration
1.2 min median
2.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
51.1% have multiple sub-steps
48.9%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
48.9% of instances follow this exactly
Open Narrative Document — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 323 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Narrative Document
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Narrative Document Reference Path
158 instances · 7 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 158 instances across 7 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Narrative Document.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
28 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 53% 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
13 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Generate Final Review Form
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 67% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Products
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -6.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% 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 Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -6.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Preview Korean Narrative
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% 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 Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Cancel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
4
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
5
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
6
Preview Korean Narrative
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 577 | 76.9% | 100.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 99 | 13.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 17 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 13 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 9 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 9 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com | 8 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Notepad | 7 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| iexplore | 4 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| msd.pi2solutions.com | 3 | 0.4% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 58 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 9 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Teams | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Excel | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
| Notepad | Veeva Safety | 4 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 4,826 events 143 cases 57.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
474×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
319×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
160×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
149×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
135×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Validation Results (Failures & Warnings)"
134×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
133×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
132×
Phobos DOM 443 events 67 cases 11.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
63×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
43×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
43×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
36×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
24×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
16×
inputld
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
16×
Microsoft Word Document 203 events 64 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
192×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
184×
file
Narrative 534695 (English)
169×
file
Narrative 523385 (English) (1)
161×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531892 (English) (26362408_0_2_340575)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531929 (English) (26362464_0_2_340629)
154×
Microsoft Teams App 86 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
993 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 80 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
18×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
[Confidential]<GPVCM Poland> <Completed>Escalation is Completed; Title: 2352930; Area: Post Marketed; ID: 4890
6×
subj
Due today reports on 27-NOV-2025
4×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Notepad App 43 events 22 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
237 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Acrobat App 40 events 17 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 28 events 8 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com App 21 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 15 events 14 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.12
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.97
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.14
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.97
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 0.97
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.12
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.14
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 44.6 | 4.5m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2353585 | Analyst 02 | 48.0 | 2.0m | 11 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2350385 | Analyst 02 | 48.6 | 11.8m | 19 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2352839 | Analyst 01 | 55.0 | 17.7m | 12 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2352962 | Analyst 02 | 57.5 | 1.9m | 4 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 2 |
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) →
04
06
13
12
05
03
02
01
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 145 | 11.2 | 82.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 444 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 98 of 145 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 33 distinct sequences across their 145 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 110 | 8.5 | 77.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 289 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 51 of 110 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 37 distinct sequences across their 110 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 61 | 5.1 | 71.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.35 | 0.00 | 286 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 12 of 61 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 61 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 1 | 1.0 | 55.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.75 | 0.00 | 18 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Reference Numbers
3
msd.pi2solutions.com
4
dtgpteal.merck.com
5
msd.pi2solutions.com
6
dtgpteal.merck.com
7
msd.pi2solutions.com
8
Microsoft Word
9
View Medical History Count
10
Acrobat
11
Microsoft Word
|
||||||||
78.9
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 44.6–97.5
8.0 min
Avg Task Duration
1.6 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
57.3% have multiple sub-steps
1.2%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
1.2% of instances follow this exactly
Open Narrative Document — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 323 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Narrative Document
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Open Cases Section
0.0s
Veeva Safety
1%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Narrative Document Reference Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 4 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Narrative Document.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
138 instances · 7 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
×
Open Cases Section
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.7 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
23 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 52% 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
13 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Details Section
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Generate Final Review Form
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Show More Details
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 67% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Products
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Generate Final Review Form
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
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 2 cases.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Test Results Section
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.9 (delta +3.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Select Case Assessments
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 642 | 77.3% | 100.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 107 | 12.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 22 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 14 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 9 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 9 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com | 8 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Notepad | 7 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| iexplore | 4 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| msd.pi2solutions.com | 3 | 0.4% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 61 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 34 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 16 |
| Microsoft Teams | Microsoft Word | 11 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 10 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 5 |
| Microsoft Excel | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 4 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 4,826 events 143 cases 57.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
474×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
319×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
160×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
149×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
135×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Validation Results (Failures & Warnings)"
134×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
133×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
132×
Phobos DOM 443 events 67 cases 11.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
63×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
43×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
43×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
36×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
24×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
16×
inputld
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
16×
Microsoft Word Document 203 events 64 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
192×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
184×
file
Narrative 534695 (English)
169×
file
Narrative 523385 (English) (1)
161×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531892 (English) (26362408_0_2_340575)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531929 (English) (26362464_0_2_340629)
154×
Microsoft Teams App 86 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
993 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 80 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
18×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
[Confidential]<GPVCM Poland> <Completed>Escalation is Completed; Title: 2352930; Area: Post Marketed; ID: 4890
6×
subj
Due today reports on 27-NOV-2025
4×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Notepad App 43 events 22 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
237 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Acrobat App 40 events 17 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 28 events 8 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com App 21 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 15 events 14 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.12
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.97
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.17
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.97
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 0.97
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.12
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.17
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 44.6 | 4.5m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2353585 | Analyst 02 | 48.0 | 2.0m | 11 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2350385 | Analyst 02 | 48.6 | 11.8m | 19 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2352962 | Analyst 02 | 53.5 | 7.7m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2352839 | Analyst 01 | 55.0 | 17.7m | 12 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
12
13
06
05
03
02
01
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 145 | 11.2 | 83.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,837 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 83 of 145 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 145 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Contacts Section
· reference: Open Cases Section
3
Open Patient Section
4
Open Medical History Section
5
Select Drug History
6
View Test Results
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
View Case Assessments
9
View Products
10
Open Details Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 110 | 8.5 | 77.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 366 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 110 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 110 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 61 | 5.1 | 71.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 332 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 61 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
· reference: Open Cases Section
This analyst exhibits 46 distinct sequences across their 61 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 1 | 1.0 | 55.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.75 | 0.00 | 18 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Reference Numbers
· reference: Open Cases Section
3
msd.pi2solutions.com
4
dtgpteal.merck.com
5
msd.pi2solutions.com
6
Microsoft Word
7
View Medical History Count
8
Acrobat
9
Microsoft Word
|
||||||||
78.8
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 44.6–97.5
3.3 min
Avg Task Duration
1.2 min median
2.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
50.9% have multiple sub-steps
49.1%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
49.1% of instances follow this exactly
Open Narrative Document — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 320 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Narrative Document
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Narrative Document Reference Path
157 instances · 7 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 157 instances across 7 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Narrative Document.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
28 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -12.1
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 53% 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
13 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
6 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Generate Final Review Form
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 67% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
3 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Products
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Outlook
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -4.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Open Narrative Document
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
4
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
5
Show More Details
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Reviewer Sweep — a viewing-heavy pattern with 5.0 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -6.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Preview Korean Narrative
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% 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 Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Cancel
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
4
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
5
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
6
Preview Korean Narrative
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 577 | 76.9% | 100.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 99 | 13.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 17 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 13 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 9 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 9 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com | 8 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Notepad | 7 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| iexplore | 4 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| msd.pi2solutions.com | 3 | 0.4% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 58 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 15 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 9 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Teams | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 5 |
| Microsoft Excel | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Microsoft Word | Microsoft Excel | 4 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 4,826 events 143 cases 57.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
474×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
319×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
160×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
149×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
135×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Validation Results (Failures & Warnings)"
134×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
133×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
132×
Phobos DOM 443 events 67 cases 11.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
63×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
43×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
43×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
36×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
24×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
16×
inputld
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
16×
Microsoft Word Document 203 events 64 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
192×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
184×
file
Narrative 534695 (English)
169×
file
Narrative 523385 (English) (1)
161×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531892 (English) (26362408_0_2_340575)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531929 (English) (26362464_0_2_340629)
154×
Microsoft Teams App 86 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
993 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 80 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
18×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
[Confidential]<GPVCM Poland> <Completed>Escalation is Completed; Title: 2352930; Area: Post Marketed; ID: 4890
6×
subj
Due today reports on 27-NOV-2025
4×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Notepad App 43 events 22 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
237 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Acrobat App 40 events 17 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 28 events 8 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com App 21 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 15 events 14 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.12
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.97
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.15
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.97
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 0.97
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.12
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.15
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 44.6 | 4.5m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2353585 | Analyst 02 | 48.0 | 2.0m | 11 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2350385 | Analyst 02 | 48.6 | 11.8m | 19 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2352839 | Analyst 01 | 55.0 | 17.7m | 12 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2352962 | Analyst 02 | 57.5 | 1.9m | 4 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 2 |
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) →
04
13
12
06
05
03
02
01
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 143 | 11.0 | 82.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 448 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 97 of 143 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 32 distinct sequences across their 143 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 110 | 8.5 | 77.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.15 | 0.00 | 289 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 51 of 110 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 37 distinct sequences across their 110 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 60 | 5.0 | 71.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.35 | 0.00 | 286 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 12 of 60 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 60 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 1 | 1.0 | 55.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.75 | 0.00 | 18 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Reference Numbers
3
msd.pi2solutions.com
4
dtgpteal.merck.com
5
msd.pi2solutions.com
6
dtgpteal.merck.com
7
msd.pi2solutions.com
8
Microsoft Word
9
View Medical History Count
10
Acrobat
11
Microsoft Word
|
||||||||
78.8
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 44.6–97.5
8.1 min
Avg Task Duration
1.6 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
57.2% have multiple sub-steps
0.9%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
0.9% of instances follow this exactly
Open Narrative Document — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 318 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Narrative Document
0.1s
0.0 edits
Veeva Safety
100%
2
Open Cases Section
0.0s
Veeva Safety
1%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Open Narrative Document Reference Path
3 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 3 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Open Narrative Document.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
136 instances · 7 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
×
Open Cases Section
skipped — this reference step was not executed
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.7 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
23 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 52% 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
13 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Details Section
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
8 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Generate Final Review Form
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
3 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -16.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Teams
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 67% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Products
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Show More Details
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Reviewer Sweep
Reviewer Verification Pass
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
View Validation Results
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Generate Final Review Form
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
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 2 cases.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Test Results Section
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 2 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 78.8 (delta +3.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Outlook
2 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -11.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Outlook
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Outlook during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
1 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
reference at this step: Open Cases Section
3
Select Case Assessments
extra step (reference ends at step 2)
Cross-App Swivel — 1 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 642 | 77.3% | 100.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 107 | 12.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 22 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 14 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 9 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 9 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com | 8 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Notepad | 7 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| iexplore | 4 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| msd.pi2solutions.com | 3 | 0.4% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 61 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 35 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 16 |
| Microsoft Teams | Microsoft Word | 11 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Outlook | 10 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 8 |
| Microsoft Excel | Microsoft Word | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 5 |
| Microsoft Teams | Veeva Safety | 5 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 4 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 4,826 events 143 cases 57.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
474×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
319×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
160×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
149×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Details"
135×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Validation Results (Failures & Warnings)"
134×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save"
133×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
132×
Phobos DOM 443 events 67 cases 11.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
63×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
43×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Please reply to “Request Information" using dropd"
43×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
36×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · Legal · Literature · Medical Recor"
24×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
16×
inputld
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
16×
Microsoft Word Document 203 events 64 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
192×
file
V-Narrative 531868 (English) (26362311_0_1_340534)
185×
file
Narrative 479307 (English)
184×
file
Narrative 534695 (English)
169×
file
Narrative 523385 (English) (1)
161×
file
V-Narrative 531284 (English) (26355806_0_2_340584)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531892 (English) (26362408_0_2_340575)
156×
file
V-Narrative 531929 (English) (26362464_0_2_340629)
154×
Microsoft Teams App 86 events 42 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
993 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 80 events 37 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case # 2326062
23×
subj
<GPVCM Announcement> Promotions to Safety Data Manager positions in Poland
18×
subj
Due today reports on 03-DEC-2025
14×
subj
Due today reports on 01-DEC-2025
13×
subj
Untitled
8×
subj
[Confidential]<GPVCM Poland> <Completed>Escalation is Completed; Title: 2352930; Area: Post Marketed; ID: 4890
6×
subj
Due today reports on 27-NOV-2025
4×
subj
<Due today><Void request><GPVCM POLAND> Case #
4×
Notepad App 43 events 22 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
237 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Acrobat App 40 events 17 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Excel Document 28 events 8 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
evocpr01.apps.americas.cf.merck.com App 21 events 7 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 15 events 14 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Adherence Vectors
Each task instance is scored on four behavioral vectors. Lower values are more adherent to the mined SoP.
0.12
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.97
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.19
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.97
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 0.97
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Swivel Rate
value 0.13
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Revisit Depth
value 1.19
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
Time outside primary app dominates this score. Identify which secondary app(s) and whether their function can be in-lined.
Lowest-Adherence Instances
The 5 task instances that scored lowest. These are the concrete cases worth investigating to understand the worst patterns.
| Case | Analyst | Score | Duration | Sub-Steps | Swivel | X-App | Revisit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2353467 | Analyst 03 | 44.6 | 4.5m | 13 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2353585 | Analyst 02 | 48.0 | 2.0m | 11 | 0.82 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2350385 | Analyst 02 | 48.6 | 11.8m | 19 | 0.63 | 0.00 | 7 |
| 2352962 | Analyst 02 | 53.5 | 7.7m | 5 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 3 |
| 2352839 | Analyst 01 | 55.0 | 17.7m | 12 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 3 |
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) →
04
13
06
12
05
03
02
01
User-by-User Breakdown
Click any analyst to see their dominant sequence vs the reference SoP.
| Analyst | Instances | Inst / Day | Adherence | Weakest Vector | Swivel | X-App | Min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 141 | 10.8 | 82.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,851 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 81 of 141 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 42 distinct sequences across their 141 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Contacts Section
· reference: Open Cases Section
3
Open Patient Section
4
Open Medical History Section
5
Select Drug History
6
View Test Results
7
View Case Assessment Results
8
View Case Assessments
9
View Products
10
Open Details Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 110 | 8.5 | 77.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.16 | 0.00 | 366 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 110 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
This analyst exhibits 43 distinct sequences across their 110 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 60 | 5.0 | 71.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.35 | 0.00 | 332 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 9 of 60 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Microsoft Word
· reference: Open Cases Section
This analyst exhibits 46 distinct sequences across their 60 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 1 | 1.0 | 55.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.75 | 0.00 | 18 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Open Cases Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Narrative Document
2
Select Reference Numbers
· reference: Open Cases Section
3
msd.pi2solutions.com
4
dtgpteal.merck.com
5
msd.pi2solutions.com
6
dtgpteal.merck.com
7
msd.pi2solutions.com
8
Microsoft Word
9
View Medical History Count
10
Acrobat
11
Microsoft Word
|
||||||||