Trainee1
51.0% Needs Improvementπ 1 calls analyzed Β· 100 point scale Β· 4 categories Β· 15 parameters
π Captured Identifiers & Reference Numbers
AI-extracted from conversation β the final confirmed value after all corrections, not just the first mention.
EMT163882104
π‘ Agent confirmed: 'E M T 163882104.'
9771434816
π‘ Assembled from 'nine double seven' (977) + 'one four' (14) + 'three four' (34) + '816' (816).
Check-in: March 16; Check-out: March 18
π‘ Agent asked and customer confirmed 'right? Yes, yes.' Year not stated.
π Call Summary
What Happened in the Call
Root Cause
Customer followed up on a hotel complaint raised the previous day; nodal officer allegedly said the booked hotel does not exist, and customer wanted refund/complaint status.
Call Flow
Agent gives branded greeting and checks audibility.
Customer says they raised a complaint yesterday and starts providing booking ID; first attempt is incorrect and customer corrects it.
Agent confirms corrected booking ID as EMT163882104 and asks what was booked (hotel in Darjeeling).
Agent requests mobile number and hotel name; customer provides number and hotel name is unclear in transcript.
Agent confirms stay dates (check-in March 16, check-out March 18) and asks for concern; customer reiterates complaint/refund status and mentions nodal officer said hotel not there.
Agent requests 1β2 minute hold to check information; customer agrees.
Agent returns from hold and states an urgent callback has been arranged from senior/relevant hotel team within 1β2 hours.
Customer asks what action was taken and requests some immediate clarity; agent repeats callback assurance and offers further help; customer remains dissatisfied.
Turning Points
Customer rejects the first booking ID capture as wrong and provides a different ID.
Introduced verification friction and reduced confidence in handling accuracy.
Agent decides to arrange a callback from senior/hotel team instead of providing status/timeline on the call.
Shifted resolution to a future interaction; customer wanted immediate action clarity.
β What Went Wrong
- β’ Initial booking ID was captured incorrectly and required customer correction.
- β’ Agent did not provide concrete refund/complaint status details (no timeline, no reference number, no next-step explanation).
- β’ Over-reliance on callback; customer left without understanding what action had already been taken.
β What Went Right
- β’ Agent used proper hold protocol (permission + return acknowledgment).
- β’ Agent confirmed the corrected booking ID and captured a phone number for follow-up.
Outcome
Callback arranged with senior/hotel team within 1β2 hours; no refund status or resolution provided during the call.
π‘ Could This Call Have Been Avoided?
Partly yes β if complaint/refund status and timelines were visible to frontline agents (or a clear script/workflow existed), the agent could have provided immediate status and reduced need for callback.
Score
51.0%
51 / 100 pts
Duration
3 mins 30 secs
Type
refund
Status
partial
π¨ Red Flags
π trainee1.mp3 Β· π [03:10] Β· Impact: Customer dissatisfaction and repeat contact risk.
π trainee1.mp3 Β· π [00:05] Β· Impact: Reduces trust/credibility.
π‘ Recommendations
If the hotel is not available/does not exist, offering alternate hotel options or rebooking support can reduce customer anxiety and improve experience.
π trainee1.mp3β What happened
β Better approach
π¬ Example script
Agent gave no timeline/amount/status explanation, only 'not showing anything' and callback, which drives repeat calls.
π trainee1.mp3β What happened
β Better approach
π¬ Example script
Customer had already explained they raised a complaint and wanted refund status; agent re-asked without summarizing, increasing repetition and frustration.
π trainee1.mp3β What happened
β Better approach
π¬ Example script