Task-Boundary Mode
How task-instance boundaries are drawn from the event stream. Applies to every Task SoP, Step SoP, and Variants view.
Submission
📝 Task SoP
Mined from 848 instances
Process Submission
How 15 analysts execute this task across 340 cases — auto-generated Standard Operating Procedure with adherence scoring.
Sub-Task Filter
Reshapes all tabs below to just this anchor within the composite task.
81.3
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
23.0 min
Avg Task Duration
0.3 min median
2.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
33.5% have multiple sub-steps
46.9%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
46.9% of instances follow this exactly
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 960 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
0.0s
Phobos
47%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Process Submission Reference Path
450 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 450 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Process Submission.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
188 instances · 12 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.1 vs reference 81.3 (delta +1.8). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.2 vs reference 81.3 (delta +1.9). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
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 81.3 (delta +1.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Patient 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 81.3 (delta +1.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
View Inbox ID
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 85.5 vs reference 81.3 (delta +4.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Create New Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
4
Select Inbox Item Number
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
5
Save
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (5 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.5 vs reference 81.3 (delta +7.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Contacts 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 84.4 vs reference 81.3 (delta +3.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 81.3 (delta +1.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,394 | 65.9% | 99.2% |
| Phobos | 451 | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 61 | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 41 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 32 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 30 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 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 | Acrobat | 26 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 15 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 12 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 11 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 7,182 events 333 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
365×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
300×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
180×
Phobos DOM 1,842 events 195 cases 42.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
125×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
103×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 163 events 65 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,356 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 67 events 41 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.1
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.10
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.2 | 0.7m | 11 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2351308 | Analyst 01 | 47.0 | 5.2m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
11
16
14
10
15
03
01
09
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 87.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 77 | 6.4 | 84.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 196 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 77 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 47 distinct sequences across their 77 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 453 | 41.2 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,843 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 450 of 453 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 453 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 107 | 8.2 | 81.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,421 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 41 of 107 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 49 distinct sequences across their 107 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 70 | 5.0 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 697 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 70 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 70 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 173 | 10.8 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,642 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 53 of 173 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 101 distinct sequences across their 173 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 16 | 2.3 | 77.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.18 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 16 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 16 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 135 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 73.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 65 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 24 | 3.0 | 70.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.33 | 0.00 | 46 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 24 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 17 distinct sequences across their 24 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.3
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
8.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.7 min median
3.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
63.1% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
510 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 510 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Submissions Section
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,394 | 83.7% | 99.2% |
| Acrobat | 61 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 41 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 32 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 30 | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| RIM Vault | 5 | 0.3% | 0.8% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 26 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 19 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 15 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 12 |
| collaboration.merck.com | usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 12 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,990 events 277 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
293×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
274×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
158×
Phobos DOM 1,011 events 130 cases 27.0 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
97×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
51×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
25×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to Medical Review"
21×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 161 events 63 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,350 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 66 events 40 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.2
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.20
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.2 | 0.7m | 11 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2351308 | Analyst 01 | 47.0 | 5.2m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
14
16
11
15
03
01
10
09
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 87.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 77 | 6.4 | 84.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 196 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 77 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 47 distinct sequences across their 77 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 107 | 8.2 | 81.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,421 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 41 of 107 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 49 distinct sequences across their 107 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 70 | 5.0 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 697 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 70 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 70 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.5 | 80.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 173 | 10.8 | 79.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,642 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 53 of 173 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 101 distinct sequences across their 173 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 16 | 2.3 | 77.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.18 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 16 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 16 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 135 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 73.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 65 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 24 | 3.0 | 70.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.33 | 0.00 | 46 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 24 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 17 distinct sequences across their 24 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.5
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 82.5–82.5
39.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.0
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
0.0% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
450 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 450 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
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 | 450 | 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.
Phobos DOM 834 events 66 cases 15.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
52×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
28×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Show · 500 · entries · idcase Actions Findings Multi"
23×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2345469 (v5.1) Japanese (Japan)"
18×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · JPV Processing Domestic · JPV Pr"
16×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Please Select Translator Comment Type · DMC · DSI"
14×
Veeva Safety DOM 195 events 59 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
73×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
26×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
22×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Case Assessment Results"
14×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Specimen Type: SERUM"
12×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from a Physi"
12×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Information has been received from the investigat"
10×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from an Othe"
9×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
6 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.
Notepad App 1 events 1 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3 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.
Quality Vault DOM 1 events 1 cases 0.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Vault Quality"
1×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Safety Production"
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
dtgpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Microsoft Outlook Message 1 events 1 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
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
1.0
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 1.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1717836 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 11.8m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
1 analyst 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
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 | 450 | 40.9 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,839 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 450 of 450 instances
1
View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
81.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
23.2 min
Avg Task Duration
0.3 min median
2.3
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
34.9% have multiple sub-steps
46.7%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
46.7% of instances follow this exactly
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 960 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
0.0s
Phobos
47%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Process Submission Reference Path
448 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 448 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Process Submission.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
177 instances · 12 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.1 vs reference 81.2 (delta +1.8). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
10 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.0
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.2 vs reference 81.2 (delta +2.0). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
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 81.2 (delta +1.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Patient 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 81.2 (delta +1.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +7.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
3
Create New Item
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
4
Select Inbox Item Number
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
5
Save
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (5 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 88.5 vs reference 81.2 (delta +7.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -15.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Contacts 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 85.5 vs reference 81.2 (delta +4.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
View Inbox ID
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 85.5 vs reference 81.2 (delta +4.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 1 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
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 81.2 (delta +1.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 81.2 (delta +1.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,478 | 66.3% | 98.9% |
| Phobos | 451 | 20.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 66 | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 46 | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 40 | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 34 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 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 | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 24 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 22 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 7,182 events 333 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
365×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
300×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
180×
Phobos DOM 1,842 events 195 cases 42.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
125×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
103×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 163 events 65 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,356 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 67 events 41 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.11
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.11
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.0 | 8.1m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2352822 | Analyst 09 | 45.4 | 11.6m | 15 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 2 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
11
16
14
10
15
03
01
09
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 87.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 77 | 6.4 | 84.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 251 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 77 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 50 distinct sequences across their 77 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
5
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 453 | 41.2 | 82.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,835 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 448 of 453 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 453 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 107 | 8.2 | 81.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,456 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 39 of 107 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 52 distinct sequences across their 107 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 70 | 5.0 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 704 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 70 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 70 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 173 | 10.8 | 79.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,745 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 49 of 173 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 107 distinct sequences across their 173 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 16 | 2.3 | 76.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 33 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 16 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 16 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.24 | 0.00 | 157 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 72.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 68 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 24 | 3.0 | 70.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.33 | 0.00 | 46 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 24 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 17 distinct sequences across their 24 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.2
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
8.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.8 min median
3.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
65.3% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
510 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 510 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Submissions Section
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,477 | 83.1% | 99.3% |
| Acrobat | 66 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 46 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 40 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 34 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| RIM Vault | 5 | 0.3% | 0.7% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 24 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 22 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 17 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 12 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,990 events 277 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
293×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
274×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
158×
Phobos DOM 1,011 events 130 cases 27.0 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
97×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
51×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
25×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to Medical Review"
21×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 161 events 63 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,350 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 66 events 40 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.22
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.22
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.0 | 8.1m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2352822 | Analyst 09 | 45.4 | 11.6m | 15 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 2 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
16
11
14
15
03
01
10
09
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 2 | 2.0 | 87.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 77 | 6.4 | 84.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 251 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 77 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 50 distinct sequences across their 77 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
5
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 107 | 8.2 | 81.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,456 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 39 of 107 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 52 distinct sequences across their 107 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 70 | 5.0 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 704 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 47 of 70 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 20 distinct sequences across their 70 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 3 | 1.5 | 80.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 4 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 173 | 10.8 | 79.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,745 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 49 of 173 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 107 distinct sequences across their 173 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 16 | 2.3 | 76.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.20 | 0.00 | 33 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 16 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 16 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.24 | 0.00 | 157 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 72.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 68 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 24 | 3.0 | 70.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.33 | 0.00 | 46 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 24 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 17 distinct sequences across their 24 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.5
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 67.5–82.5
39.6 min
Avg Task Duration
0.0 min median
1.0
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
0.4% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
450 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 450 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
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 | 450 | 99.6% | 0.0% |
| Veeva Safety | 1 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| Quality Vault | 1 | 0.2% | 100.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Quality Vault | 1 |
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 1 |
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.
Phobos DOM 834 events 66 cases 15.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
52×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
28×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Show · 500 · entries · idcase Actions Findings Multi"
23×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2345469 (v5.1) Japanese (Japan)"
18×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · JPV Processing Domestic · JPV Pr"
16×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Login"
14×
Veeva Safety DOM 195 events 59 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
73×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
26×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
22×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Case Assessment Results"
14×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Specimen Type: SERUM"
12×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from a Physi"
12×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Information has been received from the investigat"
10×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from an Othe"
9×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
6 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.
Notepad App 1 events 1 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3 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.
Quality Vault DOM 1 events 1 cases 0.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Safety Production"
1×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Vault Quality"
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
dtgpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Microsoft Outlook Message 1 events 1 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
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
1.0
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 1.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2352878 | Analyst 10 | 67.5 | 18.8m | 2 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2341669 | Analyst 10 | 75.0 | 5.4m | 2 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.0m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 0.2m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 82.5 | 4.4m | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Users on This Task
1 analyst 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
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 | 450 | 40.9 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,832 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 448 of 450 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 450 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.9
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
25.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.4 min median
2.5
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
44.0% have multiple sub-steps
43.6%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
43.6% of instances follow this exactly
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 856 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
0.0s
Phobos
44%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Process Submission Reference Path
373 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 373 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Process Submission.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
183 instances · 12 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.2
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.2 vs reference 80.9 (delta +2.2). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.3 vs reference 80.9 (delta +2.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.9 (delta +1.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Patient Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.9 (delta +1.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
View Inbox ID
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 85.5 vs reference 80.9 (delta +4.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.9
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
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
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +3.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Contacts 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 84.4 vs reference 80.9 (delta +3.4). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.4
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Case Assessment 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 80.9 (delta +1.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.6
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.9 (delta +1.6). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,394 | 65.9% | 99.2% |
| Phobos | 451 | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 61 | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 41 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 32 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 30 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 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 | Acrobat | 26 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 15 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 12 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 11 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 7,182 events 333 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
365×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
300×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
180×
Phobos DOM 1,842 events 195 cases 42.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
125×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
103×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 163 events 65 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,356 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 67 events 41 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.05
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.23
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.23
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.2 | 0.7m | 11 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2351308 | Analyst 01 | 47.0 | 5.2m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
07
06
04
11
16
14
15
10
03
01
09
02
12
05
13
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 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
6
Open Submissions Section
7
View Inbox Header
8
Open Reference Numbers
9
View Reference Numbers
10
Create New Item
11
Select Inbox Item Number
12
Save
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.9 | 84.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 196 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 71 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 45 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 375 | 34.1 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,846 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 373 of 375 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 375 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 103 | 7.9 | 81.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,424 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 40 of 103 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 48 distinct sequences across their 103 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 66 | 4.7 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 698 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 45 of 66 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 66 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 164 | 10.2 | 79.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,644 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 52 of 164 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 97 distinct sequences across their 164 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 15 | 2.1 | 77.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.18 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 15 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 15 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 135 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 73.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 65 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 23 | 2.9 | 70.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 49 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 23 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 16 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.1
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
8.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.8 min median
3.4
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
62.1% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
483 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 483 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Submissions Section
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,394 | 83.7% | 99.2% |
| Acrobat | 61 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 41 | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 32 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 30 | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 16 | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| RIM Vault | 5 | 0.3% | 0.8% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 26 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 21 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 20 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 19 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 19 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 15 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 14 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 12 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 11 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,990 events 277 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
293×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
274×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
158×
Phobos DOM 1,011 events 130 cases 27.0 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
97×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
51×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
25×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to Medical Review"
21×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 161 events 63 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,350 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 66 events 40 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.25
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.25
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.2 | 0.7m | 11 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2351308 | Analyst 01 | 47.0 | 5.2m | 10 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 5 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
14
11
16
15
03
01
09
10
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
6
Open Submissions Section
7
View Inbox Header
8
Open Reference Numbers
9
View Reference Numbers
10
Create New Item
11
Select Inbox Item Number
12
Save
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.9 | 84.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 196 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 21 of 71 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 45 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 103 | 7.9 | 81.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1,424 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 40 of 103 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 48 distinct sequences across their 103 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 66 | 4.7 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 698 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 45 of 66 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 66 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 164 | 10.2 | 79.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,644 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 52 of 164 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 97 distinct sequences across their 164 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 15 | 2.1 | 77.1 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.18 | 0.00 | 31 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 15 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 15 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.7 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.25 | 0.00 | 135 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 73.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 65 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 23 | 2.9 | 70.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 49 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 23 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 16 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
82.0
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 80.0–82.5
47.8 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
20.6% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
373 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 373 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
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 | 450 | 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.
Phobos DOM 834 events 66 cases 15.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
52×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
28×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Show · 500 · entries · idcase Actions Findings Multi"
23×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2345469 (v5.1) Japanese (Japan)"
18×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · JPV Processing Domestic · JPV Pr"
16×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Please Select Translator Comment Type · DMC · DSI"
14×
Veeva Safety DOM 195 events 59 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
73×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
26×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
22×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Case Assessment Results"
14×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Specimen Type: SERUM"
12×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from a Physi"
12×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Information has been received from the investigat"
10×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from an Othe"
9×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
6 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.
dtgpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Notepad App 1 events 1 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3 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.
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Microsoft Outlook Message 1 events 1 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
Quality Vault DOM 1 events 1 cases 0.1 min
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
1.21
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 1.21
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 4.5m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.2m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2221577 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.1m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2092390 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.0m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2221695 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.6m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
Users on This Task
1 analyst 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
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 | 373 | 33.9 | 82.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,841 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 373 of 373 instances
1
View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
80.8
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
26.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.5 min median
2.6
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
46.9% have multiple sub-steps
42.8%
Reference Path Coverage
Instances following mined SoP exactly
Reference Baseline
42.8% of instances follow this exactly
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 848 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
0.0s
Phobos
43%
Variant Explorer
Reference
Process Submission Reference Path
363 instances · 1 analysts
This is the mined reference path — 363 instances across 1 analysts follow this exact sequence. Treat as the proposed Standard Operating Procedure for Process Submission.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
172 instances · 12 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (1 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.1 vs reference 80.8 (delta +2.3). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
9 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +2.5
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Details Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 83.3 vs reference 80.8 (delta +2.5). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.8 (delta +1.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
7 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Patient Section
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.8 (delta +1.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Teams
5 instances · 4 analysts
· Δ adherence -14.8
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Microsoft Teams
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 4 analysts pivot into Microsoft Teams 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.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Acrobat
5 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Acrobat
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Acrobat during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Contacts 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 85.5 vs reference 80.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
5 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +4.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
View Inbox ID
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 85.5 vs reference 80.8 (delta +4.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to collaboration.merck.com
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
collaboration.merck.com
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 2 analysts pivot into collaboration.merck.com during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Linked Remediation Opportunities
Cross-App Swivel
Cross-App Lookup to Microsoft Word
4 instances · 3 analysts
· Δ adherence -13.3
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Microsoft Word
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Cross-App Swivel — 3 analysts pivot into Microsoft Word during this task (0% of task time in non-primary apps, 50% of events outside the primary system). Pattern is consistent with data lookup or cross-referencing rather than a system defect — lighter-weight than a Silent Workaround.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Open Case Assessment 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 80.8 (delta +1.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Genuine Complexity
Complex-Case Execution Path
4 instances · 2 analysts
· Δ adherence +1.7
Observed Sequence (vs Reference SoP on left)
differs from reference
matches reference
1
Open Submissions Section
reference at this step: View Localized Cases
2
Navigate to Cases
extra step (reference ends at step 1)
Genuine Complexity — this sequence differs from the reference path (2 sub-steps vs 1 in reference) but shows no strong pain-point signals: adherence score 82.5 vs reference 80.8 (delta +1.7). Likely a legitimate case-complexity path — not an automation candidate, but worth cataloging.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,478 | 66.3% | 98.9% |
| Phobos | 451 | 20.2% | 0.0% |
| Acrobat | 66 | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 46 | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 40 | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 34 | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 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 | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 24 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 21 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 7,182 events 333 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
365×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
300×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
180×
Phobos DOM 1,842 events 195 cases 42.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
125×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
103×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 163 events 65 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,356 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 67 events 41 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.06
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.96
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.25
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.96
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.25
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.05
Reduce cross-app hops by surfacing the secondary-app data inline (API integration or pre-fetched context panel).
Cross-App Time Share
value 0.00
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.0 | 8.1m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2352822 | Analyst 09 | 45.4 | 11.6m | 15 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 2 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
07
06
04
11
16
14
15
10
03
01
09
02
12
05
13
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 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
6
Open Submissions Section
7
View Inbox Header
8
Open Reference Numbers
9
View Reference Numbers
10
Create New Item
11
Select Inbox Item Number
12
Save
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.9 | 84.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 252 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 71 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 48 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
5
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 367 | 33.4 | 81.8 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,839 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 363 of 367 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 5 distinct sequences across their 367 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 103 | 7.9 | 81.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.00 | 1,460 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 38 of 103 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 51 distinct sequences across their 103 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 66 | 4.7 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 704 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 45 of 66 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 66 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 164 | 10.2 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,748 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 48 of 164 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 103 distinct sequences across their 164 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 15 | 2.1 | 76.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.19 | 0.00 | 33 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 15 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 15 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.24 | 0.00 | 157 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 72.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 68 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 23 | 2.9 | 70.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 49 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 23 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
· reference: View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 16 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
80.0
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 35.2–97.5
9.3 min
Avg Task Duration
0.8 min median
3.7
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
64.4% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
483 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 483 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
Open Submissions Section
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
Application Mix
Which applications analysts touch while executing this task, measured by event count and active dwell time.
| Application | Events | Event Share | Dwell Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | 1,477 | 83.1% | 99.3% |
| Acrobat | 66 | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Word | 46 | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Excel | 40 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Teams | 34 | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| collaboration.merck.com | 31 | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Microsoft Outlook | 21 | 1.2% | 0.0% |
| usc-excel.officeapps.live.com | 13 | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| apps.powerapps.com | 8 | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| RIM Vault | 5 | 0.3% | 0.7% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Veeva Safety | Acrobat | 28 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Excel | 24 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Teams | 22 |
| Veeva Safety | Microsoft Word | 22 |
| Acrobat | Veeva Safety | 20 |
| Microsoft Word | Acrobat | 17 |
| Microsoft Word | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Microsoft Excel | Veeva Safety | 17 |
| Acrobat | Microsoft Word | 17 |
| Veeva Safety | collaboration.merck.com | 13 |
On-Case Application Journey (±15 min around anchor)
Apps the same analyst touched on the same case within ±15 minutes of the task anchor. Captures work that spans task boundaries — the Veeva/Acrobat/Outlook/Word context surrounding the anchor click.
Case counts per app are not mutually exclusive — a case that touched Veeva AND Phobos in this window is counted in both rows. Overlap reflects real cross-app work, not double-counted cases.
Veeva Safety DOM 6,990 events 277 cases 84.8 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<span>
"Submissions & Distributions"
536×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Complete"
504×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
293×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Adverse Events"
280×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
274×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Products"
196×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Reference Numbers"
184×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
158×
Phobos DOM 1,011 events 130 cases 27.0 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
97×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Save Comments"
72×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advance"
54×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
51×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Attachment description · Legal · Legal Pre-Sca"
32×
pyzeClick
<a>
"Cases"
31×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Compound · - sitagliptin phosphate Tablet (G"
25×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to Medical Review"
21×
Acrobat App 240 events 61 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3,051 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
Microsoft Word Document 212 events 61 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
V-Narrative 543823 (English) (26544362_0_2_343646)
775×
file
V-Narrative 540591 (English) (26495494_0_2_345212)
723×
file
V-Narrative 528191 (English) (26300681_0_1_338349)
382×
file
V-Narrative 549707 (English) (26645831_0_1_347236)
313×
file
V-Narrative 514031 (English) (26063743_0_1_327856)
286×
file
V-Narrative 533882 (English) (26397511_0_1_345751)
230×
file
V-Narrative 525091 (English) (26253532_0_1_338428)
201×
file
Narrative 526208 (English)
190×
Microsoft Excel Document 168 events 62 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
file
Case tracking list
699×
file
2355984 (v0.1)
469×
file
Priorización
351×
file
2329445 (v2.1)
339×
file
2352822 (v0.1)
234×
file
Daily tracking list (PV-SMART) copy
225×
file
1761620 (v2.1)
186×
file
I-0000354334
153×
Microsoft Teams App 161 events 63 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
2,350 granular events captured, but no DOM, document, or message-level metadata is available for this application. Instrumenting this app directly with Pyze would unlock element-level detail.
collaboration.merck.com App 78 events 34 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
Microsoft Outlook Message 66 events 40 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
ONENOTE Document 36 events 18 cases
Document-level capture
Task Mining captures the specific file open during work — file names often encode case context.
YoudaoDict App 24 events 12 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.
0.09
Swivel Rate
events in non-primary app / total
0.93
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
inspection-only clicks
1.27
Avg Revisit Depth
max repeats of any activity
0.00
Cross-App Time Share
time outside primary app
Meta Score Distribution
Instance count in each 10-point adherence bucket. Right-skewed = healthy execution; long left tail = concentrated pain points.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Top Concern Vector
Zero-Edit Visit Rate — current value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Vector Contribution to Adherence Loss
Each vector's weighted contribution to lost adherence. The top row is your highest-leverage fix.
Zero-Edit Visit Rate
value 0.93
Investigate why analysts inspect-and-leave without editing — usually missing upstream data or unclear UI affordances.
Revisit Depth
value 1.27
High revisit depth = mid-flow rework. Trace which sub-step is being repeated; usually a data-readiness gap upstream.
Swivel Rate
value 0.09
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2329808 | Analyst 13 | 35.2 | 6.7m | 26 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 11 |
| 2356734 | Analyst 05 | 42.3 | 4.2m | 13 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2341841 | Analyst 13 | 42.5 | 0.2m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 6 |
| 2349139 | Analyst 09 | 45.0 | 8.1m | 12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 5 |
| 2352822 | Analyst 09 | 45.4 | 11.6m | 15 | 0.73 | 0.49 | 2 |
Users on This Task
15 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) →
06
07
04
14
11
16
15
03
01
09
10
02
12
05
13
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 06 | 1 | 1.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 06's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Reference Numbers
3
Create New Item
4
Select Inbox Item Number
5
Save
6
Open Submissions Section
7
View Inbox Header
8
Open Reference Numbers
9
View Reference Numbers
10
Create New Item
11
Select Inbox Item Number
12
Save
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 07 | 2 | 2.0 | 85.0 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 07's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Open Action Items
3
View Correspondence
4
Select Documents
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 04 | 71 | 5.9 | 84.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 252 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 04's Dominant Sequence
— 16 of 71 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 48 distinct sequences across their 71 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 14 | 2 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 14's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 11 | 3 | 3.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 11's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 3 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
View Case
3
Select Case Lock Status
4
View US Reference Number
5
Select Products
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 3 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 16 | 1 | 1.0 | 82.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 16's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 1 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 15 | 2 | 2.0 | 82.3 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 15's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
2
Create New Item
3
View Inbox ID
4
Create New Item
5
Select List Item
6
Continue
7
Open Test Results Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 03 | 103 | 7.9 | 81.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.06 | 0.00 | 1,460 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 03's Dominant Sequence
— 38 of 103 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 51 distinct sequences across their 103 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 01 | 66 | 4.7 | 81.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.08 | 0.00 | 704 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 01's Dominant Sequence
— 45 of 66 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 19 distinct sequences across their 66 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 09 | 164 | 10.2 | 79.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1,748 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 09's Dominant Sequence
— 48 of 164 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 103 distinct sequences across their 164 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 10 | 2 | 1.0 | 78.2 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.10 | 0.00 | 5 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 1 of 2 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 2 distinct sequences across their 2 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 02 | 15 | 2.1 | 76.6 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.19 | 0.00 | 33 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 02's Dominant Sequence
— 6 of 15 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 9 distinct sequences across their 15 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 12 | 17 | 2.8 | 73.5 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.24 | 0.00 | 157 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 12's Dominant Sequence
— 5 of 17 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 13 distinct sequences across their 17 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 05 | 11 | 1.8 | 72.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.28 | 0.00 | 68 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 05's Dominant Sequence
— 2 of 11 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 10 distinct sequences across their 11 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
| ▸ | Analyst 13 | 23 | 2.9 | 70.4 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.34 | 0.00 | 49 |
|
Reference SoP
1
Open Submissions Section
Analyst 13's Dominant Sequence
— 8 of 23 instances
1
Open Submissions Section
This analyst exhibits 16 distinct sequences across their 23 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||
81.9
Avg Adherence Score (0-100)
Median 82.5 · Range 67.5–82.5
48.9 min
Avg Task Duration
0.1 min median
1.2
Avg Sub-Steps per Instance
23.8% have multiple sub-steps
—
Reference Path Coverage
365 sub-task instances
Reference Baseline
Process Submission — Mined SoP
The most common sub-step sequence observed across 365 task instances. Use the dropdown on the right to compare any deviation to this baseline.
1
View Localized Cases
No deviation variants observed for this task in the current cut — every instance follows the reference path.
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 | 450 | 99.6% | 0.0% |
| Quality Vault | 1 | 0.2% | 100.0% |
| Veeva Safety | 1 | 0.2% | 0.0% |
Top Cross-App Transitions (within task instance)
Consecutive events that cross application boundaries within a task instance — the signal where swivel-chair patterns live.
| From | To | Transitions |
|---|---|---|
| Phobos | Quality Vault | 1 |
| Phobos | Veeva Safety | 1 |
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.
Phobos DOM 834 events 66 cases 15.2 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Send to process"
52×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2352671 (v0.1) Japanese (Japan)"
40×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Proceed"
28×
pyzeClick
<button>
"Advanced"
26×
pyzeClick
<div>
"Show · 500 · entries · idcase Actions Findings Multi"
23×
pyzeClick
<td>
"2345469 (v5.1) Japanese (Japan)"
18×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Select Report Type · JPV Processing Domestic · JPV Pr"
16×
pyzeClick
<select>
"Please Select Translator Comment Type · DMC · DSI"
14×
Veeva Safety DOM 195 events 59 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<a>
"Show more"
73×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Narrative"
26×
pyzeClick
<li>
"Narrative"
22×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Case Assessment Results"
14×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Specimen Type: SERUM"
12×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from a Physi"
12×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Information has been received from the investigat"
10×
pyzeClick
<div>
"This spontaneous report was received from an Othe"
9×
Microsoft Teams App 2 events 2 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
6 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.
Notepad App 1 events 1 cases
App-level capture
Only application name and dwell time available. Direct instrumentation would unlock deeper detail.
3 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.
Quality Vault DOM 1 events 1 cases 0.1 min
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
pyzeClick
<button>
"Vault Quality"
1×
pyzeClick
<span>
"Safety Production"
1×
gpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
dtgpteal.merck.com DOM 1 events 1 cases
DOM-level capture
Pyze JS captures every element interaction — button labels, field IDs, section panels.
Microsoft Outlook Message 1 events 1 cases
Message-level capture
Task Mining captures email subjects. Case numbers frequently appear in the subject line.
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
1.23
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 1.23
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2352878 | Analyst 10 | 67.5 | 18.8m | 2 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2341669 | Analyst 10 | 75.0 | 5.4m | 2 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 2221695 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.6m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 1856113 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.2m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| 2092390 | Analyst 10 | 80.0 | 0.0m | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
Users on This Task
1 analyst 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
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 | 365 | 33.2 | 81.9 | Zero-Edit Visits | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17,834 |
|
Reference SoP
1
View Localized Cases
Analyst 10's Dominant Sequence
— 363 of 365 instances
1
View Localized Cases
This analyst exhibits 3 distinct sequences across their 365 instances; the dominant one is shown.
|
||||||||