AI Support Readiness Sample Report

The first page should show a score band, not because the score is magic, but because executives need a fast launch decision. The band should be tied to evidence: source coverage, policy conflicts, unresolved intents, escalation clarity, and retest status.

A launch-ready score means approved intents can move forward with monitoring. A pilot-ready score means the rollout should stay narrow. A high-risk score means the support team should fix sources before expanding automation.

The report should group customer intents by launch state. This is the part a support leader can actually use to configure the AI rollout.

Approved intents have current evidence and clear conditions. Restricted intents need context or clarification. Blocked intents have missing or conflicting sources. Human-only intents require judgement, account control, legal review, complaints, privacy, security, or high-cost exceptions.

The highest-value section is often the policy conflict table. It should show where the help center, macro, SOP, private policy, or recent agent habit disagree.

Each conflict needs a canonical source owner, a customer-safe answer, a retirement or rewrite action, and a retest trigger. Without this table, the AI can synthesize contradictions into a confident wrong answer.

A readiness report is only useful if it becomes work. The source-fix backlog translates the audit into article updates, macro rewrites, SOP changes, owner review, and vendor test reruns.

This backlog should be sorted by launch impact rather than document count. A single refund contradiction can matter more than twenty low-risk stale screenshots.

The report should close with retest instructions. Every blocked or fixed intent needs the exact customer phrasing that should be rerun after the source changes.

After launch, the same report becomes a monitoring baseline: wrong-answer rate, re-contact, escalation quality, AI-only CSAT, and new blocked intents should feed back into the same launch-state map.