Workforce / Case studies / Featured

Featured methodology case · Customer support

How a 1,000-FTE customer support org would model the shift to AI agents.

Modeled scenario · real customer cases publish at TX1

A regional insurer with a thousand tier-1 customer-support agents has been asked by its CFO a question with no clean answer: what would it cost, in defensible procurement terms, to shift first-touch ticket resolution to AI? The vendor quote in their inbox cites a per-resolution rate. The contractor baseline they’ve used for years cites another. There is no third reference to anchor the negotiation.

The published WLI methodology is built for exactly that gap — a transaction-anchored, IOSCO-aligned reference rate for commodifiable labor outputs. Here is how the scenario reads against the methodology today, before any rate is published, and what changes the day Transaction 1 clears the input gate.

Category cs-ticket-resolutionBuyer archetype 1,000-FTE CS orgMethodology WLI v1.0Status Pre-TX1

Read the methodology →Talk to sales →

Pull-out · structured read

Modeled inputs

1,000 tier-1 agents · ~24M annual ticket touchesHeadcount and volume are scenario inputs supplied by the buyer archetype, not vendor data.

WLI methodology applied

cs-ticket-resolution rateCategory exists in the methodology. Published median is held until the Pass 0 input gate clears at TX1.

Honest projection

When TX1 clears, the rate becomes citable in procurement.Until then, the procurement-defensible artifact is the methodology itself — versioned, IOSCO-aligned, public — not a number.

Governance reference

IOSCO PD415 principlesCite in the procurement memo so the rate methodology is held to a standard, not a vendor claim.

Read the gating criteria in methodology and the input-gate definition under Pass 0. Real customer case studies replace this scenario the day TX1 publishes.

More scenarios Nine modeled archetypes

Filter the methodology by buyer shape.

Every scenario below is a modeled buyer archetype against the published WLI methodology. None reference a named customer. The filters are illustrative — the underlying category list is in methodology.

IndustryAllSaaSInsuranceLegalFinancial servicesBPOStandards / Academic

RoleAllProcurementOperationsComplianceEngineeringFinanceResearch

WLI categoryAllcs-ticket-resolutionsdr-outbounddoc-reviewcontract-reviewcode-reviewspend-benchmarking

SaaS · Sales

A Series B SaaS evaluates AI SDRs against its outbound contractor baseline.

The team is comparing an AI-SDR vendor quote to the rate they currently pay a contracted outbound shop. The procurement defense needs a third reference rate, not a vendor pitch.

Archetype Series B SaaS · 35-person GTMWLI category sdr-outboundMethodology WLI v1.0 · Pass 0 input gate

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

Insurance · Compliance

A regulated insurer audits an AI document-review pipeline before it hits regulated work.

Compliance lead needs a defensible reference rate per reviewed document and a methodology trail their regulator will accept. The methodology is the artifact; the rate is held.

Archetype Regulated US insurer · 300-person opsWLI category doc-reviewGovernance IOSCO PD415

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

Legal · Mid-market

A mid-market law firm models AI contract review against associate hours.

Partners want a per-clause reference rate they can defend to clients on alternative-fee engagements. The methodology supports the category; the published median is gated to TX1.

Archetype 80-attorney firm · commercial practiceWLI category contract-reviewMethodology WLI v1.0

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

BPO · Procurement

A BPO buyer anchors a multi-vendor RFP on WLI-cited reference rates.

The procurement lead wants to write a pricing clause that references a public methodology rather than vendor-supplied benchmarks. The methodology supports the clause language today.

Archetype Enterprise BPO buyer · 7-figure annual spendWLI category multi · weighted basketUse RFP pricing clause

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

SaaS · Engineering

An engineering org models AI code-review augmentation against senior IC time.

The platform lead wants a defensible per-PR reference rate to put in the engineering ladder’s productivity discussion. The category is supported; the rate is gated.

Archetype 250-person eng org · platform teamWLI category code-reviewMethodology WLI v1.0

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

FinOps · Spend

A FinOps team benchmarks AI vendor spend against the WLI basket.

The team wants to express AI spend in a labor-equivalent unit their CFO already understands. The methodology supplies the unit definition; the live basket publishes at TX1.

Archetype FinOps lead · Series D SaaSWLI category spend-benchmarkingUse CFO board reporting

Rate held · pre-TX1Read methodology →

The workforce surfaces Where the methodology lives

Six surfaces. One methodology underneath.

Each surface applies the same WLI methodology to a different buyer task. Open the surface most relevant to your scenario.

01 · Marketplace

Browse agents, skills, workflows, teams, and prompts.

The transactional layer. Every listing carries an AQO score and category. Transactions feed Tier A data into the Index.

Open marketplace →

02 · The Index

The WorkForce Labor Index (WLI).

Transaction-anchored, IOSCO-aligned reference rates for commodifiable labor outputs. Live medians publish at TX1.

Open the Index →

03 · Methodology

The published methodology paper.

Versioned, citable, IOSCO-aligned. The artifact procurement and compliance teams reference today, pre-TX1.

Read methodology →

04 · Compare

Side-by-side AI vendor comparisons.

Anchored on the WLI methodology — not vendor-supplied benchmarks. Use during procurement evaluation.

Open compare →

05 · Eval

The free supply-side eval.

Any AI builder gets a verified AQO score and badge. The supply-side wedge of the marketplace.

Get a score →

06 · Calculator

WLI calculator.

Plug a scenario into the methodology end-to-end. Outputs the methodology trail your procurement team can defend.

Open calculator →

Bring your scenario Pre-TX1

Model your scenario against the methodology before TX1.

Procurement teams use the published methodology today to anchor RFPs and vendor negotiations. The day Transaction 1 clears the Pass 0 input gate, the medians become citable. Until then, the methodology trail is the artifact.

Talk to sales →Read the methodology →

How a 1,000-FTE customer support org would model the shift to AI agents.

Modeled scenario · real customer cases publish at TX1

Category cs-ticket-resolutionBuyer archetype 1,000-FTE CS orgMethodology WLI v1.0Status Pre-TX1