Skills Compliance
Redress consistency
Two customers, same failure, same circumstances, different outcomes. It is one of the few CX findings that is indefensible on its face — and unlike most conduct questions, it is measurable from data most firms already hold.
npx rulebase-skills install cx-redress-consistencyWhen to use it
Reach for this when someone says any of these — they are the phrases the skill itself triggers on:
- “are our refunds consistent”
- “do we compensate similar cases the same way”
- “audit our goodwill decisions”
How it works
The method, in the order the skill runs it. The full procedure — tables, worked examples and the edge cases — is in the skill itself.
Compare like with like, or find nothing
Raw variation in redress amounts is meaningless — cases genuinely differ. The audit only works once you have defined comparable groups.
The dimensions to test
For each comparable group, test whether outcome varies with: Escalation intensity.
What justified variation looks like
Not all variation is a problem, and an audit that treats it all as one will be dismissed. Legitimate reasons, each of which needs to be recorded to count: A different loss, A different failure despite a shared category label, Non-monetary remedy given instead, and accepted, Customer declined, or asked for something else, Contractual entitlement genuinely differs by product or tier, A recorded exception with a stated
The remediation question
Where the audit finds a group that was systematically under-compensated, the next question is not analytical.
Related skills
Free and open source, and vendor-neutral — it reads the conversations from whichever helpdesk you already run. Browse all 149 skills · connect your helpdesk over MCP · source on GitHub
