cx-vulnerability-detectionlisted

# Vulnerability signals in support conversations Customers disclose things to support agents they disclose nowhere else in a company: a bereavement, a diagnosis, a job loss, a mental health crisis, an abusive relationship, a struggle to understand what is happening to their money. In many sectors recognising that and adapting is a duty rather than a courtesy. The analysis is worth doing and it carries more risk of harm than anything else in this catalog. Read the guardrails before the method. ## The two questions, and only one is yours **"Did the customer show a signal of vulnerability?"** — answerable from the conversation, and what this analysis does. **"Is this customer vulnerable, and what do we owe them?"** — a judgement with consequences for how a real person is treated, and it belongs to a trained human within a defined process. **Not to an analysis, and not to a model.** Keep the output at the level of *signal present, and was it recognised and acted on*. A system that labels people as vulnerable, and then treats them differently on that label without human judgement, is the specific failure to avoid — both because the labels will be wrong and because the label itself becomes sensitive data attached to a person. ## Signal categories Vulnerability is usually framed around drivers rather than customer types, because it is frequently transient — someone vulnerable this month may not be next month, and someone not vulnerable in general may be entirely so in the mi