What to do when customer interviews for AI customer support agents contradict each other

Contradictory interviews can reveal different segments, incentives, definitions, or contexts. Preserve the disagreement before trying to average it away. Two people can accurately describe different workflows while using the same label for their problem.

Start with the decision

Sort observations by role, company situation, current alternative, and triggering event. Revisit the exact episode behind each statement. Design a follow-up that distinguishes the competing explanations rather than asking which person was right.

The illustrative scenario

This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.

The fictional team drafts replies to delivery and refund questions for an online retailer. A support manager owns the queue, while finance controls refund authority. Seasonal peaks change the mix of easy and difficult tickets.

A reply that sounds fluent can still promise the wrong refund. Keep suggested language separate from permission to change an order or issue money.

Turn the scenario into an evidence decision

Consider a review of AI customer support agents in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.

Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Use anonymized ticket histories, escalation reasons, reviewer edits, and repeat-contact counts. Record whether a customer issue was actually resolved rather than counting a generated reply as success. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.

Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A useful conclusion explains where each statement holds. If the conflict disappears after segmenting by workflow, update the target segment. If it remains unexplained, keep it as an open question rather than choosing the more flattering answer. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.

Use this worksheet

Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.

1. Are the respondents doing the same task?
2. Do they use the same definition?
3. Who bears the cost?
4. Which constraint differs?
5. What observation separates the explanations?

Questions specific to this scenario

• Who can approve a refund?
• Which issues require a human handoff?
• Does the test include peak-season complaints?

Use anonymized ticket histories, escalation reasons, reviewer edits, and repeat-contact counts. Record whether a customer issue was actually resolved rather than counting a generated reply as success.

A concrete next test

Choose one ordinary delivery question, one refund exception, and one repeat complaint. Have the support owner trace each from intake to a usable resolution. Record where draft quality, authorization, and customer follow-up require different evidence or different people.

Interpret the result

A useful conclusion explains where each statement holds. If the conflict disappears after segmenting by workflow, update the target segment. If it remains unexplained, keep it as an open question rather than choosing the more flattering answer.

Compare the draft-and-review workflow with the current queue, including time spent fixing errors and handing cases back to people.

Sources and method

These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.

• a16z: A Framework for Finding a Design Partner
• NIST: AI Risk Management Framework