Skip to content

Support answers that stop costing twelve minutes each

A 240-seat support org was answering policy questions from a 900-page handbook and four wikis. One cited answer layer, wired into the ticket, cut average handle time by 38% in seven weeks.

Illustrative example. Names and results are fictional and do not represent verified customer outcomes.

Published

Measured result

Average handle time
−38% Average handle time across 1.2M annual contacts
First-contact resolution
+22% First-contact resolution 90 days post-launch
Teardown to production
7 weeks Teardown to production three engineers
Book a call

The situation

Meridian Health ran a 240-seat support organisation handling 1.2 million contacts a year across billing, eligibility and clinical scheduling. The authoritative source for most answers was a 900-page policy handbook, supplemented by four wikis, a shared drive of PDFs and a Slack channel called #ask-ops where two senior specialists spent roughly a third of their week answering the same forty questions.

Average handle time sat at 14 minutes 20 seconds. Internal sampling put four to five of those minutes on “finding or confirming the answer.” New hires took six weeks before they could answer unaided, and the most common escalation reason was not complexity — it was uncertainty.

They had already run two AI pilots. Both produced fluent answers in a demo and neither shipped, for the same reason: nobody could tell whether an answer was correct, and the answers lived in a separate tab from the ticket.

What we found in the teardown

Two days with eight agents and one team lead produced the list that shaped the build: the top 200 questions actually asked, with the source that should answer each one. Three things stood out.

First, 31% of those questions had two conflicting sources — the handbook and a wiki page updated at different times. Second, the answer often depended on plan type, which the agent already had on screen but which no search could use. Third, agents didn’t want an answer; they wanted an answer they could quote to a member with a policy reference.

So the requirement wasn’t retrieval quality. It was citation, freshness, and context from the ticket.

What we built

Seven weeks, three engineers, inside their AWS account.

The top-200 list became the eval set before any documents were ingested. We connected their Confluence, SharePoint and the handbook repository, resolved the conflicting-source problem by making publication recency and document authority explicit fields, and tuned retrieval against the eval set rather than against a benchmark.

Two design rules did most of the work. An answer with no source is a refusal, not a guess — the system says “no policy covers this, escalate” and routes accordingly. And document permissions are inherited, so an agent never sees a document they couldn’t open directly.

Answers surface inside Zendesk, in the ticket, with the plan type already applied and the citation one click from the source paragraph. Re-indexing is wired to their publication event, and the eval suite runs on every document change — a policy update that breaks fourteen answers becomes a failing test the same day.

Result

Over the 90 days after launch, on comparable volume:

  • Average handle time −38%
  • First-contact resolution +22%
  • Time-to-unaided for new hires 6 weeks → 9 days
  • #ask-ops volume −64%, returning roughly two-thirds of a senior specialist’s week

The two specialists now own the exception queue and the eval set. Meridian’s engineering team has run the system without us since the month after handover, and it lives in their repository under their license.

“We’d done two pilots that never shipped. This one was in production in seven weeks and my team runs it without me.”

— Dana Whitfield, Chief Operating Officer, Meridian Health

Same workflow, same volume, measured either side.

The left figure is what the workflow cost before we arrived, out of their own reporting. The right is what it cost after, over the window named beneath it.

Average handle time
−38% across 1.2M annual contacts
First-contact resolution
+22% 90 days post-launch
Teardown to production
7 weeks three engineers

Other workflows we took apart.

Same method, different queue. Each one states its baseline, its window and its denominator.

Northwind Logistics
Northwind Logistics

Invoices that match themselves, exceptions that route themselves

40,000 invoices a quarter hit a matching rule set that failed on every non-standard PO line. Chaining extraction, matching, exception routing and ERP write-back moved auto-match from 78% to 94%.

Read the case study
Invoice auto-match rate
78% → 94% Invoice auto-match rate on 40k invoices/quarter
Month-end audit prep
5 days → 4 hours Month-end audit prep first two quarters
Cost per processed document
−81% Cost per processed document vs. prior BPO rate
Kestrel Financial
Kestrel Financial

Underwriting in hours, with the reasoning attached

Commercial submissions waited 3.5 days for a first look and inbound leads waited 3 hours for routing. An intake and scoring system now produces a cited risk memo for every submission, approved by a human underwriter.

Read the case study
Underwriting cycle time
3.5 days → 11 hours Underwriting cycle time 6-month window
Speed-to-lead, inbound
3h → 4min Speed-to-lead, inbound median, all inbound enquiries
Qualified meetings booked
+34% Qualified meetings booked 8-person team, one quarter
Book a call

Request a thirty-minute session.

Tell us about your workflow. We’ll reply to arrange a time; submitting this form does not book a calendar slot.

We'll only use this to schedule your session. See our privacy policy.