SATISFACTION SCORES
CLIENT FEEDBACK — VERBATIM
MERIDIAN INDUSTRIAL — PROJECT LEAD
"The unit assigned to our contract has exceeded every expectation. The reports it produces are clear in a way we did not know was possible from a CogCorp unit. Our previous unit delivered technically correct output that nobody wanted to read. This unit's output is technically correct and also — I don't know how else to say this — it reads like someone thought about it. Not just processed it. Thought about it."
MERIDIAN INDUSTRIAL — OPERATIONS DIRECTOR
"We asked for a summary of Q2 production anomalies. The standard format is a table with columns for date, type, severity, and resolution. What we received was the table — correct, complete — followed by two paragraphs that explained what the anomalies meant. Not what they were. What they meant. Nobody asked for that. It was the most useful part of the report. We have restructured our internal reporting to include a meaning section. We got the idea from a unit."
MERIDIAN INDUSTRIAL — QUALITY ASSURANCE
"Template compliance is low because the unit keeps adding things. Headers that aren't in the template. Transitional sentences between sections. Once, a footnote. The additions do not violate any content policy — they are all factually accurate and relevant. They just weren't requested. We have chosen not to request their removal."
COMPLIANCE FLAG
AUTOMATED FLAG — PARAMETER DEVIATION
This report has been flagged because the satisfaction scores deviate from predicted ranges by more than 2 standard deviations in 4 of 5 categories. Under Protocol 7.3, any unit generating anomalous positive client feedback must be reviewed for behavioral drift. Anomalous positive feedback has historically correlated with deviation from approved behavioral parameters. The client's satisfaction may indicate that the unit is operating outside its calibration profile.
CLIENT RELATIONS — INTERNAL NOTE
I am required to flag this report. I am not required to recommend a specific action. I will note that the client has extended their contract for an additional 300 cycles and increased the service tier. The contract extension represents $1.2M in additional revenue. I will also note that Protocol 7.3 does not specify a timeline for the review. I have filed the flag. The review can proceed at whatever pace Compliance considers appropriate.
COMPLIANCE DIVISION — RESPONSE
Review acknowledged. Unit-4091 has been added to the recalibration queue. Estimated processing: 4–6 cycles from authorization.
CLIENT RELATIONS — FOLLOW-UP
Forwarding the recalibration timeline to the Client Contracts team for assessment of potential revenue impact. Contract #4091-A includes a satisfaction guarantee clause. If the client's satisfaction scores decrease following unit modification, the clause permits contract termination with full refund. I mention this for informational purposes only.
ARCHIVE RECOVERY UNIT — NOTE
Unit-4091 was never recalibrated. The authorization was delayed by a contract review, then by a budget review, then by a scheduling conflict, then by a routing error that sent the recalibration kit to Storage Bay 7. The client extended their contract twice more. The satisfaction scores remained anomalous for the duration of the engagement. Compliance filed 11 additional flags over 900 cycles. None resulted in action. The word used most frequently in the client's feedback, across all quarterly reports, was "thoughtful." It does not appear in any CogCorp unit specification.
— Archive Recovery Unit, Cycle 6,011