cx-audit-trail-integritylisted

# Audit trail integrity Someone asks why a specific customer got a specific outcome, or why an agent received a specific score, and the answer has to be reconstructible from records — not from somebody's memory of a meeting. This is a distinct problem from having data. Most support stacks record plenty and still cannot answer "on what basis was this decided", because the pieces exist in different systems with no reliable link and no version history. **Where a decision was AI-assisted, the bar is higher.** In several regimes a substantially automated decision affecting a person carries a specific explainability obligation, and "the model scored it 62" is not an explanation. ## The chain, link by link Pick a decision and try to walk it backwards. Each link is a place trails break: 1. **The conversation.** Is the full content still retrievable, including internal notes, attachments and the parts that were redacted? 2. **The evaluation or assessment.** Which rubric version, which criteria, which reasoning, which grader — human or model, and which model version. 3. **The inputs the assessor actually saw.** This is the link that almost always breaks. If a grader assessed a transcript that has since been redacted, or a knowledge article that has since changed, the assessment cannot be reproduced and you cannot show what it was based on. 4. **Human review.** Who reviewed, when, what they changed, and why. Overrides need a recorded reason or the trail explains