Supervisors can separate workflow or tool breakdowns from agent behavior in a single review by reading the call for evidence. This approach turns low scores into clear diagnoses that route either to coaching or process change without debate.
Start by confirming the caller’s intent and the expected path, then look for evidence of tool or policy friction such as repeated holds, transfers that bounce, or knowledge checks blocked by systems. Compare what the agent did to the expected flow and capture what was missing as negative evidence. If the agent’s behaviors are consistent and the path is blocked, it’s process; if the flow is available but the agent fails key behaviors, it’s performance.
A supervisor opens a low-scoring call. The comments say the agent missed resolution and handle time was excessive. Two minutes into the review, it is clear the agent followed the script, but the workflow forced two long holds while an approval screen failed and the CRM dropped context. The customer repeated their account number twice because the lookup did not stick. The score reads like an execution problem; the recording reads like a broken process.
Across real conversations, the earliest signals are not the final outcome but the shape of the path to it. Repeated holds at the same step point to system latency or an approval gate that does not return. Transfers that bounce back to the original queue suggest routing rules that do not map to the caller’s intent. Confusion loops—where the agent re-asks verification after a tool refresh—signal context loss rather than willful non-adherence.
When the path is sound, the early signals look different. The system surfaces the right record on first pass, the knowledge article loads quickly, and the agent moves through verification, discovery, and resolution with normal pacing. Misses in these cases show up as skipped confirmations, weak summarization, or inaccurate guidance that is not tool constrained. These are behaviors, not workflow traps.
Begin by stating the caller’s intent in a sentence and naming the expected path. If you cannot name the expected path, that itself is a process gap. As you listen, confirm whether the conversation stays on that path or diverges because a tool, policy, or queue boundary changes the route. When divergence happens, note the exact timestamp and what triggered it.
Next, separate path constraints from agent choices. If an approval screen fails or a required field blocks submission, the agent’s options narrow. If the system behaves, examine the agent’s decisions: did they ask the right questions in sequence, did they confirm understanding, did they use available knowledge correctly? This is where behavioral consistency matters; you are checking whether the same core behaviors show up reliably when nothing external is in the way.
Capture what did not happen as well as what did. For many quality criteria, negative evidence is decisive: no verification before disclosure, no summary before close, no confirmation of resolution. Mark these moments with timestamps so the conclusion is explainable.
Finally, translate the observation into a label that a team can act on. Calling this a process failure is not a score correction; it is a routed diagnosis. If the failure mode is repeatable at the same step across calls, it belongs with the process owner. If it is behavior inside a working path, it belongs with coaching and the QA scorecard.
In payment disputes after a new fraud check launches, experienced agents often sound hesitant because the approval service times out. You will hear long, purposeful silence followed by tool navigation talk tracks and a second attempt at verification when context drops. The agent adheres to the call flow, but the system does not. Scoring this as an execution miss teaches the wrong lesson and hides a systemic blocker that will repeat tomorrow.
The inverse is common on simple address updates. The path is straightforward, tools respond quickly, and the call ends in under four minutes. A weak agent can look fine here because the process carries them. If you listen closely, you will catch the missing verification or the lack of a final confirmation. These misses are not masked by process; they are revealed by the absence of friction.
Once the failure mode is clear, route with evidence. For process, include timestamps where the path failed and a one-line description of the blocker. For coaching, name the specific behavior and where it was missing. This keeps discussions grounded in the recording, not interpretation, and shortens the loop between what calls reveal and what teams do.
If you enter a review asking, “Which failure mode am I hearing?” the call becomes operational truth. You stop arguing about a score and start labeling cause. Holds, transfers, and confusion loops describe the system; confirmations, summaries, and accuracy describe the agent. When teams separate these cleanly in a single review, trust improves and improvements land where they will actually change tomorrow’s conversations.