A source-led audit framework for testing whether call dispositions are consistent, traceable, actionable, and separated from unsupported outcome claims.
Headline finding
A disposition is useful when another person can understand what happened, what did not happen, and who owns the next action. A vague label can make a clean-looking report unreliable.
Methodology
Sample dispositions across intents, agents, and channels. Compare labels with source notes and approved taxonomy. Separate missing, duplicate, unresolved, and completed outcomes; publish the sample frame and exclusions.
Key stats and takeaways
- Taxonomy consistency must be checked against evidence.
- “Completed” should require a defined acceptance condition.
- Local audits do not establish universal conversion or savings rates.
Audit model
Require intent, action, route, outcome, exception, owner, and due point. Provide an unknown or needs-review label. Change taxonomy only through owner-approved versioning so historical reports remain interpretable.
Measurement table
| Measure | Definition | Review question |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Label agreement | Disposition matches the evidence | Could a second reviewer reproduce it? |
| Completion validity | Outcome meets the defined condition | What proof exists? |
| Exception rate | Records needing owner review | Is the policy incomplete? |
| Taxonomy drift | Labels outside the current version | Who owns cleanup? |
FAQ
### Should agents choose the closest label?
Only when the taxonomy says it is valid; otherwise use review status.
### Can a disposition include sensitive details?
Only minimum necessary details under the approved access and retention policy.
Related Research
- [Customer call disposition taxonomy](/research/customer-call-disposition-taxonomy)
- [Call-center KPI definition guide](/research/call-center-kpi-definition-guide)
- [Call-center after-call work](/research/call-center-after-call-work)
