Follow up on coaching by checking new opportunities for the agreed behavior, recording dependencies, and choosing explicitly whether to close, continue, or revise the plan. An acknowledged session confirms receipt of feedback; it does not establish that the behavior changed or that customers experienced a better outcome.
Level AI describes coaching follow-ups. AWS documents coaching history and agent acknowledgement. Use those records as part of a reviewable process, while keeping evidence of learning separate from evidence that a meeting happened.
What should be prepared before the review?
Retrieve the original behavior goal, practice task, support commitments, and agreed evidence rule. Identify contacts where the agent actually had an opportunity to demonstrate the behavior. If the relevant situation did not occur, document insufficient opportunity rather than marking the goal achieved or failed.
Ask the agent to bring an example and explain the decision. Select additional cases using a stated rule so the review does not consist only of a manager's most memorable failure or the agent's easiest success. Preserve disagreements in the review record.
Which disposition should the manager choose?
| Disposition | When it may fit | Record required |
|---|---|---|
| Close | Agreed behavior is demonstrated | Supporting opportunities and any remaining limits |
| Continue | Progress exists but evidence is incomplete | Next review opportunity and support |
| Revise | Goal or practice does not match the need | Reason for the change and new plan |
| Resolve dependency | System or policy blocks the behavior | Owner and interim operating approach |
| Insufficient opportunity | No suitable new case is available | How evidence will be obtained fairly |
These are proposed managerial decisions, not advertised product statuses. Do not use a numerical QA change alone to choose the disposition when the original goal concerns a specific behavior.
How do you check that progress transfers?
Review a later case with a similar decision but different wording or circumstances. Ask the agent to identify the relevant exception and the point where escalation would be appropriate. This checks whether the learning extends beyond a memorized example.
Keep the scope proportionate. A narrow improvement should not become a claim that overall performance increased. If broader metrics are reviewed, note changes in contact mix, queue assignment, or rubric that could explain the movement.
What happens when the same issue returns?
Examine the previous plan before assigning another session. The practice may have been too abstract, the knowledge may be inconsistent, or a tool may make the desired action difficult. Ask whether the same behavior occurs across agents; that pattern may justify a shared process correction.
Update the plan with an explanation rather than resetting the history. Use action-plan design when the goal needs revision, and the QA-to-coaching workflow when findings are not reaching an owner.
What does an evidence-based close decision look like?
Suppose an illustrative plan asks an agent to confirm the next owner before ending a replacement request. A later reviewed contact includes a clear owner, but another ends while the system is unavailable. Do not record two successes or assume the outage is a skill failure. Mark the first as demonstrated and the second as a dependency case, retaining the agent's explanation.
| Follow-up field | Illustrative record |
|---|---|
| Opportunity definition | A replacement request where the agent can assign the next owner. |
| New evidence | Contact reference, relevant excerpt and applicable rubric version. |
| Observed behavior | Owner confirmed, omitted, disputed or not observable. |
| Decision | Close, continue, revise, resolve dependency or wait for opportunity. |
Report behavior demonstrated over eligible reviewed opportunities separately from sessions completed over assigned sessions. Neither fraction alone establishes a customer outcome. Set the evidence requirement before examining the examples; do not close a plan by selecting only favorable contacts. A recurring dependency belongs in the operations queue with an owner and interim instruction, while the coaching history retains the reason the plan could not be judged.
What are the limits of this guide?
Sources were checked October 20, 2026. No coaching program was evaluated, and the guide offers no evidence that a particular review interval improves performance. Choose intervals and evidence requirements for the behavior and operating conditions. Product histories may omit relevant context, so retain dependency and agent-explanation records rather than treating a closed task as proof of improvement.