Philippines staffing research
How do reviewers score calls when consent audio is missing?
A blinded reliability design for incomplete recordings.
Research question and evidence scope
Published: September 11, 2026. This protocol examines how do reviewers score calls when consent audio is missing? It reports no measured effect or promised result.
Methodology: use one recording beginning after the consent point as the observation unit. Pre-register eligibility, exclusions, fields, missing-data codes, and comparisons.
Scope/population: recordings with a verified late start. Observation window: a ten-week sample plus fifteen business days. Do not generalize beyond these workflows, dates, and systems.
Operating scenario and evidence
Data collection should preserve pseudonymous IDs, sources, timestamps, queue states, owner decisions, outcomes, exclusions, and missingness.
Analysis should report counts and denominators by workflow, case band, reviewer, action, and outcome. Use intervals only when supported.
Method and review criteria
Inference and causal boundaries: Missing audio cannot prove consent; agreement is not compliance. Case mix, source age, staffing, season, scripts, and workflow changes are competing explanations.
Quality control: pilot a codebook, blind a second reviewer, and report agreement, adjudications, exclusions, and rule changes.
Limitations: incomplete audio, late notes, inconsistent timestamps, small groups, selection, and unobserved actions can bias results. Quantify each.
Authority and practical implications
Use findings narrowly to improve a field, queue rule, reviewer guide, or prospective test; never judge an individual from aggregates.
Sources/References: NIST Privacy Framework (https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework); FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/telemarketing-sales-rule); AAPOR Best Practices (https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/best-practices/); Philippines National Privacy Commission (https://privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/).