Interactions and context
Available recordings or transcripts with queue, contact reason, agent identifier, and relevant outcome metadata. Review coverage is always reported against the eligible data actually supplied.
Quality evaluation & coaching
Turn quality findings into coaching that changes outcomes.
Quality leaders need more than another score. They need to know which behaviors deserve attention, whether an evaluation is trustworthy, and what happens after coaching. CXDisco helps use interaction analytics and automated evaluation to surface patterns for review, focus supervisor attention, and build a measurable coaching cycle. Your team defines the standards and retains responsibility for consequential decisions.
RECOGNIZE THE PATTERN
Does this sound
familiar?
- A small reviewed sample produces feedback that agents and supervisors do not recognize as representative of their work.
- Quality scores appear strong while repeat contacts, poor explanations, or inconsistent next steps continue.
- Supervisors spend time finding calls and completing scorecards, with little evidence that coaching changes the targeted behavior.
START WITH THE EVIDENCE
The data that brings
the picture together.
Your evaluation standard
Current scorecards, definitions, policy versions, and examples of agreed good and poor performance. Subjective criteria need clear guidance and calibration before automated scores become useful.
The coaching cycle
Coaching topics, dates, supervisor review decisions, and later eligible interactions where available. Workforce permissions and appropriate access are established during scoping, before individual performance information is used.
HOW CXDISCO HELPS
A focused path from
question to improvement.
Calibrate before scaling
Choose a small set of meaningful evaluation criteria. Compare automated findings with trained reviewers across representative contact types, inspect disagreements, and refine ambiguous definitions before widening coverage.
Identify a teachable pattern
Look for recurring behavior rather than treating one unusual interaction as a trend. Review whether policy, tooling, customer complexity, or missing knowledge contributed before assigning an issue to the agent.
Give actionable feedback
Use reviewed conversation examples to explain the specific behavior and the next action. Agree a coaching focus the agent can practice, while routing process problems to the team that can resolve them.
Check what changed
Review subsequent eligible interactions for the targeted behavior and the relevant customer outcome. Keep evaluation definitions stable during the measurement period and distinguish coaching activity from demonstrated improvement.
DEFINE SUCCESS BEFORE YOU START
Measure what actually changes.
- Evaluation agreement
- Agreement and disagreement between automated findings and calibrated human reviewers, broken down by criterion and relevant contact type.
- Reviewed coverage
- Eligible interactions evaluated and the share subject to human validation, with exclusions and missing data made visible.
- Behavior adoption
- Frequency of the agreed behavior in comparable eligible interactions before and after the coaching intervention.
- Outcome movement
- Change in the relevant resolution, repeat-contact, or conversion measure, considered alongside contact mix and other operational changes.
Automated evaluations can be wrong, and additional coverage does not guarantee fairness or accuracy. Human calibration, transparent criteria, an appropriate review process, and ongoing validation remain necessary.
ILLUSTRATIVE WORKFLOW · NOT A CUSTOMER STORY
Illustrative assessment: a clearer next step
Starting problem
A team suspects that customers leave calls without knowing what will happen next. This example describes a possible assessment, not a customer case study or a promised improvement.
Possible intervention
Define what an adequate next-step explanation includes, calibrate evaluations on reviewed calls, and coach the missing behavior using relevant examples. Investigate missing process information separately.
Measurement plan
Agree a baseline and follow-up period for the same contact reason. Measure the explanation behavior, related return contacts, and reviewer agreement; publish results only when the evidence supports them.
BEFORE WE TALK
Your next questions, answered.
Does automated evaluation replace our QA team?
The useful role is to expand the evidence available and focus review effort. Your quality team still sets standards, resolves ambiguous findings, calibrates the approach, and decides what should change.
Can we keep our existing scorecards?
They provide a starting point. We examine whether each criterion can be assessed from the available evidence, identify definitions that need clarification, and agree which criteria should remain manual.
How do we avoid coaching a process problem?
Compare the behavior with what the agent could reasonably know and do. Repeated failures across a team may point to policy, knowledge, or workflow issues that coaching alone cannot solve.
ONE PROBLEM. A PRACTICAL NEXT STEP.
Assess our quality and coaching.
Tell us about your current environment and the outcome you want to improve. We’ll discuss the evidence available and what a focused assessment could cover.
Submitting this form requests a conversation about scope. It does not commit you to an engagement.