Q848
When AI becomes embedded in a workflow, people are no longer just executing tasks — they are interpreting recommendations, validating outputs, and collaborating with intelligent systems.

Choose one specific, real process from your domain where AI is currently being used (or could realistically be used). Clearly describe:

1. The original (pre-AI) workflow and performance expectations

2. What AI now does within that workflow

3. One situation where AI could improve results

4. One situation where AI could create risk, bias, delay, or hidden errors

Based on this, answer:

• What new skills or judgment capabilities become essential?

• Which traditional skills reduce in importance — and why?

• How should performance metrics change to avoid blind reliance or passive resistance?

• What kind of training intervention would actually work in practice (not theory)?

Your response must demonstrate depth of understanding of the chosen process. Superficial or generic observations will not be approved.

🏆 The best answer will be selected on the basis of:

• Depth and realism of the chosen process

• Ability to distinguish AI assistance from human accountability

• Insight in redefining performance measures

• Practical and implementable capability development approach

Standard Note for Website Visitors

• This platform hosts two weekly questions — one on Monday and the other on Thursday.

• All previous questions can be found here:
  https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/lean-six-sigma-business-excellence-questions/

• To participate in the current question, please visit the forum homepage at:
  https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/

• The question will be open until Tuesday or Friday at 9:00 AM Indian Standard Time, depending on the launch day.

• Responses will not be visible until they are reviewed.

• Responses will not be visible until they are reviewed, and only non-plagiarised answers with less than 5-10% plagiarism will be considered for winner selection. 

• If you are unsure about plagiarism, please verify your answer using a plagiarism checker tool such as https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/ before submitting. 

• Participants are welcome to use AI tools while preparing their answers. However, selection of the winning response will depend on the quality of thinking, contextual relevance, clarity of reasoning, and practical insight demonstrated.

• All correct answers shall be published, and the top-rated answer will be displayed first. The author will receive an honourable mention in our Business Excellence dictionary at:
  https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/business-excellence-dictionary-glossary/
  along with the related term.

Chosen BPO process: Insurance Claims Intake + First Notice of Loss (FNOL) Triage

(Commonly outsourced by insurers to BPOs, high-volume, high-stakes, and already seeing real AI adoption.)

---

1) Original (pre-AI) workflow and performance expectations

Workflow (before AI)

1. Claim comes in via phone/email/web form.

2. Agent reads/listens, then manually extracts key details: policy number, incident date/time, location, damage type, injuries, parties involved.

3. Agent classifies claim (auto/property/health; severity; liability indicators).

4. Agent checks completeness (missing documents, unclear descriptions).

5. Agent routes claim to the correct queue: standard adjuster, fraud review, fast-track, or special investigation.

6. Agent writes the claim note in insurer-required format and submits.

Performance expectations

• Speed: Average Handle Time (AHT) and daily throughput.

• Accuracy: Data entry accuracy, correct routing, minimal rework.

• Compliance: Mandatory scripts, privacy rules, and correct disclaimers.

• Customer experience: Call quality scores, empathy, resolution.

Pre-AI, good performance meant being fast and precise under pressure. The work was cognitively heavy: constant switching between systems, policy rules, and customer narratives.

---

2) What AI now does within that workflow

AI is typically inserted as a co-pilot, not a full replacement. In a realistic implementation, AI performs:

• Speech-to-text transcription of calls.

• Entity extraction (policy ID, dates, names, incident type).

• Auto-summarization into insurer-style claim notes.

• Severity scoring (e.g., injury mentioned, commercial vehicle, fire, third-party involvement).

• Routing recommendation (fast-track vs. adjuster vs. SIU).

• Checks for missing info, such as a missing police report number or no photos uploaded.

• Guided next steps – (“Check for injuries” and “Confirm drivable status of the vehicle.”)

The human agent becomes less of a “data typist” and more of a quality gate + decision owner.

---

3) One situation where AI could improve results

High-volume catastrophe events (storms, floods, wildfires)

During a catastrophe, claims spike 5–20x. Humans under stress make predictable errors: missing key fields, incorrect routing, incomplete notes, and inconsistent severity tagging.

AI improves outcomes by:

• Standardizing intake notes so adjusters can act faster.

• Flagging severity reliably (injury, displacement, unsafe property).

• Preventing missing mandatory questions, which reduces downstream callbacks.

• Enabling faster triage, especially for vulnerable customers.

Result: lower rework, faster claim cycle time, and better customer experience during peak demand.

---

4) One situation where AI could create risk, bias, delay, or hidden errors

Fraud/SIU risk scoring that becomes self-fulfilling

If AI is trained on historical data, it may learn patterns that correlate with fraud investigations—not actual fraud. For example:

• Certain neighborhoods

• Non-native accents (via transcription errors)

• Certain claim descriptions that are more common among specific groups

• Past investigator bias embedded in labels

This creates risk in two ways:

1. Bias: Claims from certain groups get disproportionately routed to SIU.

2. Operational delay: False positives flood SIU queues, slowing legitimate claims.

3. Hidden errors: Agents may trust the score and stop thinking critically (“AI flagged it, so it must be suspicious”).

It is a typical AI suggestion that turns into the decision failure scenario.

---

What new skills or judgment capabilities become essential?

1) Recommendation literacy

Agents must interpret AI output like they would interpret a junior colleague’s suggestion:

• What evidence supports this routing?

• What assumptions is it making?

• What is missing?

2) Error detection + plausibility checking

The best agents will catch:

• Wrong incident date (common with speech recognition)

• Misidentified vehicle model or location

• Incorrect severity due to phrasing (“no injuries” misread as “injuries”)

3) Escalation judgment

• Knowing when to override AI becomes a core competency.

• Not overriding is a decision. Overriding without reason is also a decision.

4) Documentation discipline

Agents must clearly record:

• What AI suggested

• What they accepted/rejected

• Why (briefly)

This is critical for audits and accountability.

---

What are some of the traditional skills that become less important -- and why?

1) Fast typing and manual summarization

AI will write notes faster and more consistently than most humans. The agent’s value shifts from producing text to validating it.

2) Memorizing scripts

AI can prompt required questions. What matters more is knowing when the script is insufficient and what to ask next.

3) Pure speed metrics

If agents are rewarded mainly for AHT, they’ll accept AI output blindly to finish faster—creating downstream rework and compliance risk.

---

How should performance metrics change?

To avoid blind reliance or passive resistance, metrics must reward judgment quality, not just speed.

Replace / rebalance:

• AHT → Effective Handle Time

  • Time + downstream impact (rework, callbacks, adjuster clarification requests)

Add:

• AI override quality rate

  • Not “how often they override,” but:

  • Were overrides correct?

  • Were non-overrides correct?

• Downstream defect rate

  • % of claims returned by adjusters due to missing/incorrect intake info.

• Triage accuracy

  • Did the claim land in the right queue the first time?

• Compliance integrity

  • Did the final record meet legal + insurer standards (not just “AI produced text”)?

Guardrail metric:

• Challenge rate (lightweight)

  • Agents should show evidence of review: edits, confirmations, or flagged uncertainty.

  • This prevents passive “copy-paste AI” behavior.

---

What training intervention would actually work in practice?

A practical 2 – 3 week course that includes simulation and coaching (not slides or lectures in a classroom).

Most AI training fails because it teaches features, not judgment.

A workable approach:

Week 1: Controlled claim simulations

Agents handle 30–50 realistic FNOL cases where AI intentionally:

• Gets 10–20% of details wrong

• Produces biased fraud scores

• Misroutes edge cases

Agents must:

• Detect errors

• Justify overrides

• Write audit-friendly reasoning

Week 2: Real-time shadowing with a coach who reviews and guides you

For real claims:

• Coach reviews a sample of cases daily

• Gives fast feedback on:

  • missed AI errors

  • unnecessary overrides

  • poor documentation

Week 3: Calibration + scoring

Agents are scored on:

• downstream defect rate

• correct triage

• quality of overrides

This builds the exact muscle the job now requires: human accountability over AI suggestions.

---

Bottom line: what actually changes in performance?

In FNOL BPO work, AI doesn’t remove responsibility, it moves it.
The agent shifts from mainly writing claim notes to managing risk around AI-driven decisions.

So high performance becomes:
Not merely quick or checkbox-compliant, but fast and right as well, having clear responsibility.

In Sales Operations, the initial model that we deployed was a complex one as it was a combination of three processes.

Step 1. Autogenerating Descriptions from "one to many" and “many to many” relationship structure

Step 2. Auto QA

Step 3. Auto upload the correct answer if QA is good enough.

 

Original (pre-AI) workflow

• The earlier (pre‑AI) workflow was entirely manual, with each process operating independently.

• It required extensive human effort, was prone to errors, and

• Lacked scalability due to high dependency on manual intervention.

• The performance expectation was that all metrics should consistently meet or exceed the defined SLAs.

 

AI workflow

• After substantial learning and refinement, we were able to simplify the complex “one‑to‑many” and “many‑to‑many” structures.

• We formed a dedicated team to ensure that any issues or fallouts were identified and resolved at an early stage.

• QA: All outputs were automatically mapped to the desired target state. Initial fallouts were thoroughly revalidated to ensure accurate root‑cause analysis.

• Subsequently, we developed an automated upload mechanism that leveraged the outputs from the above processes, effectively making the workflow “self‑correcting.”

 

The inherent AI risks and hidden errors primarily came from the “garbage in, garbage out” principle. It took several quarters of learning and refinement to improve data quality and model outputs. During the period, human effort increased significantly, as teams had to review the AI‑generated outputs in addition to managing their regular responsibilities.

 

New skills that came to forefront were:

• Developing deep Subject Matter Expertise (SME).

• Collaborating with AI systems to guide learning and improvement.

• Demonstrating greater resilience during iterative refinements.

• Continuously monitoring and validating final outputs for accuracy.

 

Traditional skills becoming less relevant:

• Performing repetitive, manual tasks.

• Following labor intensive work methods as faster ways are easily available.

• Producing static, one dimensional outputs. Now everyone is looking for two-way communication.

• Managing slow and time consuming processes.

 

Performance metrics would still be aligned to the business but we can expect more accuracy, faster cycle times, less human errors and more scalability.

Training intervention that works:

1. Change Management trainings on how to accept the changes

2. Skill updation to make create SME force

3. Tool trainings/ On the Job training

4. Share real historical user cases and how businesses & employees were able to benefit from the same.

5. Allow humans to challenge the output and get their help for RCAs.

6. Issue identification training - Compare, discuss differences, and explain reasoning

7. Prompts & Interpretation Training

During each month-end close, OpEx Accounting is responsible for posting AP (Accounts Payable) Unposted line entries to the GL (general ledger). AP Unposted lines result from invoices that are placed on hold and not posted to the GL because they can’t be matched to a PO (purchase order) and receipt. This could be because there is no PO# on the invoice, conflicting information on the invoice vs PO. During the month, AP investigates to try and match invoices to POs and determine the right GL coding, so they can be released for payment and posted to the GL as an expense. However, since this can be difficult, coding is often assigned to the wrong cost center, location, or account, and many invoices remain unresolved. Hence, AP will prepare a consolidated report of all non-postable invoices send it to OpEx to use for further investigation and posting the final journal entries.

 

OpEx communicates with Finance Partners (FP’s) who research and reach out to business partners to determine the right coding. FP’s then e-mail OpEx with GL coding change requests and OpEx adjusts the entries one by one. Close to 200 line item adjustment entries are manually created each month. Furthermore, in order to permanently correct coding on future invoices, trouble tickets must be submitted to both AP and Procurement.  However, it is observed that many FP’s ignore to update the trouble tickets.  As a result, the same invoices end up re-appearing on next month’s report, and are continuously coded incorrectly. This is a time-consuming, unscalable, and error-prone process that undermines operational efficiency, as well as the reliability of financial reporting.

Root Causes Analysis:

 

 AP Error:

-When the invoice is coded incorrectly even if:

      -there is a valid PO# listed on the invoice

      -bill to/ship to entities match on both the PO & Invoice

      -vendor/supplier match on the PO & Invoice

      -line items, quantities, and $ amounts on both documents match

-When the total of invoice distributions does not equal the invoice amount entered in OFA

 

 Vendor (Supplier) Error:

-When there is no PO listed on the invoice, or the invoice is invalid (may also be listed as 'Invoice over $10,000' <-- invoices over $10K need a valid PO on them to be processed)

-When there is no PO, and the PO requestor cannot be found (applies to invoices that don't require PO or are under 10K, also listed as 'Non-Postable: Workflow Needed, or 'Unable to find requestor')

-When there is an invalid distribution/bank account for the vendor (also listed as ACH Reject)

 

 Business (Amazon's) Error:  

-When the PO is missing the cost center, tax, or other line items

-When the release # for an invoice is not created on a PO (Each release # corresponds to a line on a PO.  For each release, the vendor will send the desired amount of goods/services on the PO line corresponding to the release # and also send an invoice for it)

-When the business hasn't added more money to the PO, when they know they have placed orders exceeding the remaining PO amount

-When the business places an order before having a fully approved PO

 

 Unknown:

-When the quantity billed exceeds the quantity received (could be business or vendor error)

-Unable to match items/judge which lines to match (Unable to match invoice to PO for various reasons)

-When the vendor/supplier on the invoice doesn't match the one on the PO (could business or vendor error)

-When they are different bill to/ship to entities on the PO vs Invoice (could be business or vendor error)

-When the invoice price exceeds the purchase order price (could be business or vendor error)

-Duplicate invoice

Solution:  

 

An automated metrics dashboard was created to assist AP and Procurement with their analysis and efforts to minimize unposted lines. Meetings were held with both teams to ensure OpEx was providing metrics with appropriate root cause analysis (refer below for Root Cause Analysis). The current dashboard is split into 4 areas: Hold Category Metrics, Supplier Metrics, PO Requestor Metrics, and Coding Change Metrics. Users can view the number of unposted lines and $ amounts per hold category, supplier, and requestor, as well as the lines and $ amounts for coding change requests per hold category and root cause. This aids in identifying whom to contact and what problem areas to focus on first. (i.e. if there is a PO requestor with a large quantity of unposted lines under their name, they may need to be trained on how to properly prepare a PO requisition).

Benefits

•Compliance: The metrics dashboard helps pinpoint root causes of error, so action is taken to prevent future on-hold invoices stemming from the same reasons, ultimately reducing unposted lines. Reducing lines allows more invoices to be released for payment so expenses can be recognized in the period they were incurred in. This increases timeliness and relevance of financial data, and is in accordance with accounting’s matching principle5.

•Transparency: The metrics dash board provides a much better audit trail and more simplified way of tracking, as opposed to searching through e-mails in order to recall and justify coding changes. This improves our trust and relationship with stakeholders3, and mitigates audit risk. 

•Customer Obsession: AP and Procurement no longer have to sift through countless tickets to fix each invoice/PO. This metrics dash board consolidates all errors into one list that can be sent to both teams to ensure coding is fixed for any future or unpaid invoices on the same PO.

•Efficiency: Allowing FPs and AP team to review their errors saves the time spent by OpEx investigating and revising. The extra time can now be used to thoroughly review support for coding changes, assist team members with other pressing close issues, and conduct more detailed reviews of journal entries to ensure all are posted correctly.

Benefits: Time Saving – Effort saving of 1232 Hours/Annum

In Narratives process for US commerical mortgage banking deals, AI(Berkie) is being embedded directly into analysts day to day workflow to help draft core Narratives sections.

1. Original (Pre-AI) workflow and performance expectations

   Before AI tool called Berkie was used, the Narrative draft workflow followed a manual, time sensitive sequence

   Document Collection & Review

   Analyst manually gathered and studied multiple source documents: Offering Memorandum, Appraisal report, Property website, Borrower website/Sponsor details, Rent comps, Sales comps, expense comps from external websites, Crime reports, Google/Google Maps for location & aerial review, and latest financial analysis.

   Drafting Narrative sections manually

   Analyst wrote every section from scratch: Property overview, Location overview, Borrower/Sponsor overview, Management overview, Market Overview, Rent/Sales/Expense comps, Strength & Weakness, Risk & Mitigants, and Crime reports

   Performance expectations

   Accuracy of extracted data, Consistency in writing style, ability to identify key risks and themes, 100% manual verification, Turnaround time was typically longer(5hours to a full day depending on deal complexity)

   The process heavily relied on the analysts attention to detail, writing ability, and familiarity with CRE underwriting.

2. What AI (Berkie) now does in the workflow

   With introduction of Berkie, analysts now use a structured marketplace of prompts for each narrative section. Analysts upload relevant documents (Offering memorandum, Appraisal, reports), URLs where possible(property site, crime data, etc), Screenshots or extracted information where login access restricts data.

   Berkie's role:

   Reads the attachments and URLs, Uses predefined prompts for each section, Produces a first draft narrative, structures the content according to the standard CRE narrative format (Freddie, Fannie agency template), Extracts factual information (property details, comps, management info, location attributes, market trends, etc)

   Analysts role afte AI input:

   Validate numerical accuracy, Fix missing or misinterpreted insights, Add deal specific perspective, Ensure compliance with underwriting and agency guidelines, and Finalize risks, mitigants, and subjective assessments.

   This has shifted analysts responsibility from writing everything to reviewing, correcting, and fine tuning.

3. One situation where AI improves

   Improvement scenario : Enhancing speed & consistency in Market overview section.

   The market overview section often requires synthesizing market rents, vacancy rents, Employment trends, population growth, local economic drivers, competitors property performance.

   Before Berkie(AI), Analysts spent significant time pulling this from multiple sources and writing a clear Narrative

   How Berkie(AI) improves it: Berkie extracts and organizes market stats quickly, generates consistent writing style across deals, Highlights macro trends an analyst might overlook, saves hours of manual research & writing.

   Impact: Faster turnaround, reduced analyst workload, and more uniform quality across the team.

4. One situation where AI could introduce risk, bias, delay or hidden errors

   Risk scenario: AI misinterpreting a financial data or comps

   Berkie may mis-read or mis-interpret Rent comps, Sales comps, Expense line items, NOI or DSCR calculations, Sq footage discrepancies between OM V/S Appraisal, Property photo context or map locations.

   Example: If Berkie incorrectly intreprets rent comps(e.g mistakes asking rent for effective rent, or uses older data from attachments), the narrative could inaccurately reflect market positioning leading to misinformed lender decisions.

   Why this creates a risk: Financial misreads may not be obvious during a quick review, Berkie/AI sometimes hallucinates missing data, Analysts may overtrust the AI draft, Incorrect comps analysis affects valuation, underwriting, and risk assessment.

   Potential outcomes:

   Undetected errors -> Misleading Narratives, Delays if analyst must significantly rewrite sections, Bias if AI leans toward overly positive/negative language, and Risk missing key red flags( e.g deferred maintenance, tenant rollover, poor crime trends)

   To manage these risks and bias, the workflow must treat AI as a drafting assistant with clear expectation that analysts must Cross check key data points against source documents, consciously adjust for optimistic marketing language v/s independent data, Document any data conflicts or uncertainities in the Narrative or internal notes.

   This balance using AI for speed and consolidation, while keeping human analysts fully accountable for accuracy and judgement is what turns AI from simple automation tool into a genuinely collborative part of the Narratives process.

Domain: ITIL, cloud, digital services, cybersecurity and consulting based out of 26 countries

I will use one real ideal process from my work which is major incident management. This is when a very important system goes down or becomes slow and many users or customers are impacted, so is the business. Before AI the workflow was simple but usually very slow.

Whenever a major incident happened we would start a call and invite all the technical teams, SMEs from network, application, database, security etc. everyone checked their own tools, logs, records etc. We would usually get on a meeting to find the cause. sometimes people argued because each team thought the problem was not theirs, there was no clear cut bifurcation or problem identification. It took at least 15 to 20 minutes just to agree on the first possible cause that too after a lot of disagreements. The goal was to find a work around first, update stakeholders every now and then typically within 30 minutes and bring the service back as quickly as possible. Now with the help of AI the first step at least moves faster. The AI can read the historical logs, metrics, errors, monitoring alerts etc. from many systems. It can also check if any change or deployment happened around the same time then it tells me the top two or three possible causes, even though it does not solve the problem on its own but it helps me know at least where to start or a high level root cause and where to investigate first. It also drafts the first message for stakeholders and suggest which playbook/rules to follow based on past incidents. This reduces confusion and at least speeds up the early decisions.

There is one situation which I recall  where AI improved results a lot. One time we had sudden 502 errors. AI was notified that there was a deployment 15 minutes before the issue began and it saw that memory usage and garbage collection patterns matched an old incident. It suggested rolling back the deployment or scaling up the app further into other servers, this helped us fix the issue faster instead of wasting time exploring other areas like network or database first.

There is also a situation where AI can create problems. Once after a storage upgrade the application became very slow. the AI obviously did not know about the storage change because this change record was not fed yet. So basis the historical data the AI is thought it was the same old database time out issue and recommended tuning the connection pool once. Our DB technical team followed that direction and wasted almost 40 minutes! Later we found out the storage upgrade caused micro delays. This shows me that AI can be wrong when the data is missing or not updated which we all know is a drawback of AI. If the data fed is not correct or up to the mark or updated, the output is bound to go wrong and this is where we need to be careful as well as we have discussed in one of the previous forum questions.

From these experiences one important skill which I learned is checking evidence. I cannot trust AI blindly I must understand why it is giving a suggestion and check if the signals match what I see and the skill is understanding what information the AI can and can't see. If I know the AI doesn't have the latest change records I will obviously fully not trust its suggestions, I also need to quickly test when the resolution is correct or not by doing safe/Qualitychecks. The ability to ask good questions to the AI also becomes important like -show any signals after the last deployment or compared pre incident and post incident data.

Some old skills becomes less important for example manually searching through many dashboards and log tools becomes less important because the data is already collected and fed and the AI summarizes that information. Also the best part is depending on memory becomes less important because the AI can remember hundreds of old incidents. We also do need to keep on updating the excels and records locally in our systems. Performance metrics also need to change, instead of measuring only speed we should measure how good the first thought is and whether we used good judgment. We should also track how many times we check the AI’s answer for acting and how many wrong suggestions we detected. This prevents blind trust.At the same time we should encourage people for using AI because this is the latest technology, this is the need of the hour. This is obviously a friendly in need but that creates trouble as well. Instead we measure how well the person uses AI to support good decisions.

For training, I think simple and practical sessions work best we can take real past incidents and replay them first without AI then with AI. after that we compare the results and discuss what we learned. Short weekly practice sessions also help like how to write a better question to the AI or how to verify an AI recommendation with quick quality checks. In fact we have also created a list of AI prompts which can be used for typical scenarios. Just to summarize this example I would like to state that AI definitely helps make major incident management faster but it still continues to need a lot of human judgment. This is where the experts, the technical experts, architects etc. are needed now more than ever simply because this is the initial stages of AI and we really need to validate if this can be used independently as soon as possible in the near future. As I have mentioned in one of the previous post that AI is used as a helper not a replacement. The AI is good at speed and pattern recognition and repeatable data but myself, the SMEs the technical experts they are basically responsible for safety,understanding the business impact and making the final decisions.

In the cards and payments domain, Fraud Monitoring has shifted from a "reactive, list-clearing" chore to a high-stakes "investigative oversight" role. This transition is most evident in the way banks and payment processors manage Real-Time Online Authorization decisions.

1. Before AI

Historically, fraud monitoring relied on static rules. Like flagging high end transactions at a merchant known for low ticket sales. Tagging transactions that came from a particular terminal known to have processed many fraudulent transactions

• Analysts manually reviewed a queue of "flagged" transactions. Each case required the analyst to open multiple browser tabs: the customer’s history, recent merchant logs, and perhaps a map to check "velocity" (could they have physically traveled from London to New Delhi in 2 hours?).

• Expectations: Analysts were measured on "Queue Clearance" (cases closed per hour). However, false positives were incredibly high, leading to "False Declines" that frustrated legitimate users and lead to customer dissatisfaction

2. Current AI outlook

AI acts as a Behavioral Orchestrator. Instead of simple "if-then" rules, it uses Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) or Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to analyze thousands of data points in milliseconds.

• AI calculates a Probability Score. It doesn't just look at the current purchase; it analyzes biometric "typing" speed, device ID reputation, and the "hidden connections" (e.g., this card was used at a terminal that processed five stolen cards yesterday).

• The Result: The AI handles 99% of transactions instantly. The analyst only sees the "edge cases"—complex, high-value, or novel patterns that the model finds ambiguous.

3. Improving Results

Situation:. A fraudster makes tiny, $1.00 purchases at 1000 different obscure online merchants over three months. Static rules would never trigger because the amounts are too low. A sophisticated AI model detects a subtle "drift" in the customer's typical spending metadata (e.g., the browser version changed slightly) and links these 1K micro-transactions to a single botnet, stopping a massive coordinated breach before the "big" theft occurs.

4. Risk

Situation: During major disruptive events, the past historical analysis may not work. An example would be the Covid pandemic. Transactions pre 2000 were very different from what people did during Covid.

---

The Evolution of Expertise

New Essential Skills

• Model Explainability (XAI) Interpretation: The ability to understand why the AI flagged a transaction (e.g., "It’s not the amount; it’s the IP-to-Shipping-Address distance").

• Data Forensics: Rather than just checking a customer's address, analysts must now investigate "Digital Footprints"—IP reputation, proxy-piercing data, and social graph links.

Declining Traditional Skills

• Manual Data Entry/Verification: The need to manually cross-reference zip codes or call merchants for transaction verification is largely automated.

• Basic Rule Writing: Creating simple "if-then" logic is now inefficient. Systems that rely on these are being replaced by adaptive ML features.

Changing Performance Metrics

• From "Volume" to "Precision/Recall Balance": Measuring how many cases an analyst closes is dangerous. Metrics should shift to "Value of Overrule."

• The Metric: Track how often the analyst correctly identifies an AI "False Positive." This incentivizes the analyst to be a critical auditor rather than a passive observer.

---

Training for analysts:

Generic classroom training on "what is AI" fails. Effective training requires Adversarial Simulation.

The Training Intervention:

1. Set of Historical transactions worked upon by analysts.

2. Trainers intentionally include some "Synthetic Fraud" cases—transactions that look perfectly normal to the AI but contain "Human-Logic" red flags (e.g., a 90-year-old grandmother suddenly buying $5,000 worth of gaming crystals in an online video game).

3. Challenge: Analysts must justify why they are ignoring the AI’s "Low Risk" score.

4. Impact: This teaches analysts that the AI is a signal, not an order. It builds the muscle memory needed to spot fraudulent events that the algorithm hasn't seen yet.

 

🏆 WINNER (1)

Taby Sheikh
This is the most complete, realistic, and job-relevant answer — it clearly explains how performance shifts when AI enters a workflow, with strong examples of both upside and risk. The metrics redesign and training intervention sections are especially strong and demonstrate the highest maturity and depth.

---

✅ APPROVED

Manish_Gupta_Tpgl
This is a well-structured response that explains the before/after workflow and shows a credible learning curve, including risks like data quality and iterative refinement. It could be tightened for clarity, but it is relevant, practical, and publishable.

Smitha Muralidharan
This response is detailed, grounded in a real professional workflow, and clearly shows how AI changes the analyst’s role from creator to reviewer and quality owner. The risk section is especially strong because it highlights misinterpretation and hallucination in a way that feels realistic.

Aloke Biswas
This is a strong real-world example with a balanced view of AI as an accelerator for root-cause direction, not a replacement. It also demonstrates the key insight that AI fails when the system lacks updated context, which is an important learning point.

Anil Kumar CAISA
This is a high-quality response with strong domain relevance and a mature understanding of how AI changes work from “queue clearing” to investigative oversight. The performance metric redesign (“value of overrule”) and the adversarial training suggestion are excellent.

Vijay Yivaturi

This is a strong operational example with clear root cause breakdown and measurable impact (1232 hours annually), which adds credibility and business value. While it focuses more on process automation and dashboarding than on deeper shifts in judgment, metrics redesign, and skill evolution, it is practical, structured, and worthy of publication.

Domz D
Your example clearly shows how AI shifts effort from manual extraction to structured drafting support, and you correctly highlight the need for quality checks when OCR accuracy is imperfect. To strengthen this further, you could add a more concrete performance metric shift (for example, measurable reduction in rework or error rate) and a deeper risk scenario beyond conversion accuracy, such as subtle content distortion or over-standardization affecting report insight.

---

❌ REJECTED (Not strong enough / too generic)

Harjeet
This response is too high-level and lacks a specific workflow, measurable performance change, or realistic risk scenario. It reads more like a generic AI summary than an applied workplace answer.

Dhruva Kapur

This answer is currently not specific enough and does not clearly follow the structure the question asks for (workflow, improvement case, risk case, metrics, training). It needs more concrete examples and clearer linkage to performance outcomes.

Himanshu_Lohani_WpY8

This is too brief and does not provide enough depth to be useful to readers. It lacks specific examples, risks, and a meaningful discussion of performance metrics and training.

Vijay Gonsalves

This answer does not sufficiently address the question in the required structured way and lacks detail on what AI changes in performance. It also does not provide a strong example of risk, metrics redesign, or training intervention.

Preethi Bijesh

The response has good intent but is too short and does not demonstrate a clear before/after workflow or performance shift. It needs more specificity and stronger examples to be publishable.

Jinad_Padiyath _tPv5

This response does not contain enough detail to meet the standard for publication. It needs clearer structure, realistic examples, and a stronger treatment of risk and performance metrics.

---