Investigate a workflow problem with a timed record of what the customer asked, what the agent could see, and what the system actually did. Use screen and audio evidence to narrow competing explanations before deciding whether the problem requires coaching or a tool change.
Level AI describes synchronized screen and audio records. CallMiner describes screen recording during customer interactions. Amazon Connect suggests investigating non-talk time with audio and transcripts. None of these descriptions proves the cause of an individual delay.
What question should start the investigation?
Choose a specific discrepancy, such as a long pause while looking up an order, repeated navigation between two tools, or a summary that says a task was completed when the case record differs. “Improve productivity” is too broad to determine which evidence to collect.
Work within approved access and recording practices. Start from the interaction's existing linked records; do not expand collection merely because another source might be available. Mark missing or redacted segments as gaps, rather than reconstructing unseen actions as facts.
How should the event timeline be built?
| Timeline field | Example of useful evidence |
|---|---|
| Customer event | Question or correction with timestamp |
| Screen event | Visible navigation, message, or waiting state |
| Spoken explanation | What the agent tells the customer is happening |
| System result | Case or task record confirming the outcome |
| Interpretation | Hypothesis clearly separated from observation |
Check alignment before drawing conclusions. If audio and screen timestamps differ, record the offset and the uncertainty it creates. The absence of a visible click does not prove an action was skipped when part of the desktop, interaction, or record is missing.
How should competing explanations be tested?
- Mark the interval where progress appears to stop.
- Compare the customer's request with the visible task state.
- List plausible explanations: unclear instructions, missing information, slow response, or navigation difficulty.
- Check a comparable successful interaction for the same task.
- Ask the responsible workflow owner for a reproducible test.
A slow lookup might reflect an unresponsive application, an ambiguous identifier, or an unfamiliar process. Avoid turning an observed pause into a judgment about agent ability. Ask whether another agent using the same inputs and tool encounters the same obstacle.
What should the investigation hand over?
Create a compact evidence packet: task, timestamps, relevant excerpts, visible result, missing evidence, and the proposed next test. Route a reproducible application issue to its owner and a demonstrated knowledge gap to the appropriate training owner. Keep mixed causes open until the evidence separates them.
After a change, repeat the task and inspect the affected interval plus final outcome. A faster screen sequence is insufficient if it introduces a wrong update or shifts work to the customer.
For buying criteria, see screen-and-audio platform evaluation. For task-level friction, see customer-effort analysis.
What does a completed event timeline look like?
The following is an illustrative investigation, not an observed contact. A customer reports an incorrect address. At 01:10 the agent opens the record; at 01:25 the screen shows a saved edit; at 01:40 the agent says the address is corrected. The customer later sees the old address. Preserve those events before choosing a cause.
| Evidence | What it establishes | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Screen shows the save button pressed | The displayed action occurred at that point | Whether the authoritative system persisted the value |
| Audio promises a correction | The customer received that statement | Whether the promise was fulfilled |
| System history shows a later overwrite | A subsequent state change, if the history is complete | Which actor caused it until the audit event is linked |
Test competing explanations: unsaved change, stale screen, delayed synchronization or later overwrite. Request the smallest additional record that distinguishes them. Record clock offsets between audio, screen and system logs; apparent sequencing can be misleading when the clocks differ. The investigation closes with an evidence-supported finding, an explicitly unresolved finding or a reproducible follow-up test, rather than a guess assigned to the agent.
Limits
This workflow relies on human investigation and available evidence; it does not claim automated visual understanding or causal certainty. Public product material can mix current features and roadmap items. Confirm recording coverage, synchronization, review permissions, and actual system outcomes for the case being investigated.