Quality and Call QA: Reports
Objective. Open Reports and treat an exported quality figure as a scoped snapshot that must carry its sample, period and calibration basis - never as a bare commitment or SLA.
Reports package quality results for sharing. This screen answers 'what do we hand to a stakeholder?' - and the discipline is making sure the exported number cannot be misread once it leaves the tool.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
Reports turn the loop's results into shareable outputs for leaders, clients or audits. It answers 'what is the defensible summary we can send out?' A CSM uses it to produce QBR and governance packs; Sales uses it to show the programme is reportable and auditable - while being careful that an exported figure keeps the caveats that live naturally inside the app.
The task
Scope the report to the team, period and metric the stakeholder needs, then before it leaves the tool, attach the basis: the sample and coverage, the rubric version, and the calibration state behind the numbers. The task is to produce a figure that reads correctly out of context - including a plain statement of what is coverage versus what is accuracy.
How to read it
The classic misread happens after export: a report number becomes a customer commitment or an SLA with none of the context that made it meaningful. A reported quality figure is a snapshot of a scoped sample at a point in time, not a guarantee of the operation's quality. Label coverage as coverage and accuracy as accuracy - '100 percent evaluated' is a coverage claim, not a quality claim. Read any report you are about to send by asking what a stakeholder could wrongly conclude from the bare number, then add the sample, period and calibration basis that prevents that conclusion.
Honest limits
A report cannot carry more certainty than the sample, rubric and calibration beneath it, and it freezes a moving picture at one moment. Do not let an exported figure become a contractual metric without product and commercial sign-off. Confirm with product which report formats, exports and scheduling are entitled; the demo shows the outputs on seeded data.
Interpretation check
An exported quality figure is a scoped snapshot that must carry its sample, period and calibration basis - a bare report number read as a commitment or SLA drops exactly the context that made it meaningful.
In the field
KnackGlobal (RCM): a QA figure sent to a client without its sample and calibration basis invites it to become an assumed SLA - the basis footnote is what keeps a shared number honest and defensible.
Practical task
Open the Reports screen, assemble one report for a team and period, and write the basis footnote you would attach: sample and coverage, rubric version, calibration state, and one sentence separating coverage from accuracy.
Self-check
A report says '100 percent of calls evaluated.' Is that a quality claim?
No - it is a coverage claim. Accuracy comes from calibration and improvement from recurring-error reduction; label coverage as coverage so a reader does not mistake it for quality.
What must travel with an exported quality figure?
Its sample and coverage, rubric version and calibration state, plus the period - the context that stops the bare number being misread out of the tool.
Why is turning a report figure into an SLA risky?
Because the figure is a snapshot of a scoped sample at a moment, not a guaranteed operating level. Making it contractual needs product and commercial sign-off.
What question should you ask before sending any report?
What could a stakeholder wrongly conclude from the bare number - then add the basis that prevents that conclusion.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/reports; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.