Weekly Operations Report · WK 28
QC operations — weekly report
Accuracy held. Throughput slipped, and it slipped for a reason worth your attention — not a staffing problem. One decision needed from you this week.
Accuracy is green at 98.2% and has held for six straight weeks. Throughput is amber, down 7% — driven almost entirely by a rise in genuinely harder cases, not by operator performance. Two new operators certify next week, which resolves capacity. One decision needed: approve the contract extension for the two ramping operators (§5).
01Scorecard
| Measure | Wk 28 | Wk 27 | Target | Trend | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review accuracy | 98.2% | 98.1% | ≥ 98.0% | ▲ 0.1 | On target |
| False accept rate | 0.4% | 0.5% | ≤ 1.0% | ▼ 0.1 | On target |
| Cases / operator / day | 112 | 120 | 120 | ▼ 7% | Below target |
| Queue age (p90) | 31 hrs | 26 hrs | ≤ 24 hrs | ▲ 5 hrs | Breaching |
| Reason-code completeness | 100% | 100% | 100% | — flat | On target |
| Escalation accuracy | 96% | 94% | ≥ 95% | ▲ 2 | Recovered |
| Operators certified | 9 | 9 | 11 | — flat | 2 in ramp |
02What moved, and why
Throughput is down because the work got harder
The obvious read on a 7% throughput drop is an operator problem. The data doesn't support that. Case mix shifted materially this week: cases requiring full manual escalation rose from 12% to 19% of volume. Per-case handling time on that category is roughly 3.5× a standard review.
Normalised for case mix, effective throughput is flat to slightly up. The team is not slower. The queue is heavier.
If escalation share is trending rather than spiking, our 120/day target is mis-specified and will keep generating amber weeks that aren't real. I'd rather re-baseline the target against case mix than keep reporting a miss that isn't one. Recommend we review at month end with four weeks of mix data.
Queue age is the real risk
p90 queue age at 31 hours breaches our 24-hour commitment. This is a customer-facing number and the one I'd watch. It resolves mechanically when the two ramping operators certify (projected Wk 29), but until then we are exposed on SLA.
03Wins
- Six weeks accuracy above target. The calibration cadence introduced in Wk 22 is holding — this is no longer noise.
- Escalation accuracy recovered to 96% after two weeks amber. Targeted coaching for the two operators driving the dip worked.
- Reason-code completeness at 100%, sixteen weeks running. Every decision is auditable.
04Risks
| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLA breach on queue age | High — customer-facing | Certain until Wk 29 | Two operators certify Wk 29; interim overtime approved | J. Tapia |
| Escalation share keeps climbing | Medium — capacity model breaks | Medium | Re-baseline throughput target against 4-wk mix data | J. Tapia |
| Fatigue drift under queue pressure | High — accuracy is the one thing we don't trade | Low, rising | Late-queue audit sampling raised to 30% this week | QC Lead |
05Decision needed from you
Extend the two ramping operators' contracts by one quarter. Both certify Wk 29 and are the direct fix for the SLA exposure above. Their current terms end Wk 32, which would put us straight back into the same queue-age breach in August. Cost is within the approved headcount envelope. If declined, I'd need to re-plan capacity and we should talk about which SLA we're willing to miss instead.
06Next week
- Certify two operators (Wk 29 review board, Thursday)
- Hold late-queue audit sampling at 30% until queue age is back under 24 hrs
- Pull four weeks of case-mix data for the throughput re-baseline conversation
- Monthly calibration session — full team, Friday