When Agents Complete Tasks but Ruin the Experience: The Resolution Without Satisfaction Problem
Here’s a scenario that’s probably familiar: your agent has a 90% task completion rate. It’s resolving issues, shipping outputs, closing loops. Your dashboard looks healthy. And then you look at your engagement numbers, and week-over-week usage is quietly flat or declining. No spike in cancellations. No angry support tickets. Just… a slow fade.
You check the completion rate again. Still 90%. Nothing’s broken. So what’s happening?
What’s happening is the resolution-without-satisfaction problem. And it’s one of the most underdiagnosed failure modes in agent products right now.
Completion rate tells you whether the agent finished. It tells you nothing about whether the user felt good about that.
In traditional SaaS, resolution and satisfaction tend to move together because the software is deterministic. You clicked the export button, the file downloaded, you’re satisfied. Done. The gap between “did it work” and “did I like it” is narrow because software either does what it says or it doesnt.
Agents are different. They operate in natural language, they interpret intent, they make judgment calls at every step of a workflow. There are a hundred ways to technically complete a task and still leave the user feeling like something went wrong. And unlike a software bug, which a user would report, this failure mode is invisible. Users dont file tickets about their agent being “technically correct but slightly off.” They just use it less.
^ your completion rate dashboard while users quietly start doing these tasks manually again
The three archetypes of resolved-but-unsatisfying interactions
After tracking hundreds of millions of agent interactions across the products that run on Agnost AI, three failure patterns show up again and again. Each one shows as a completed task in your metrics. Each one erodes user trust in a different way.
Archetype 1: The technically correct response
The agent does EXACTLY what was asked. Word for word, action for action. And the user walks away frustrated.
This happens because users ask for what they think they want, not always what they actually need. A product manager asks the agent to “write a three-bullet summary of last quarter’s performance.” The agent produces three clean bullets, perfectly formatted, technically accurate. The user reads them and realizes the bullets they wanted were comparative, not just absolute numbers. They needed context, not just data.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: a human assistant with the same context would have asked a clarifying question. Or noticed the framing issue and volunteered the comparison. The agent didn’t catch that. It just… executed.
The user’s thought in that moment isn’t “the agent failed.” It’s “I should have been more specific.” But that feeling, that sense of having to pre-think every prompt to avoid a technically-correct-but-wrong output, accumulates. After five or six of those experiences, the user’s mental model shifts. The agent isn’t a collaborator anymore. It’s a literal-minded execution engine that requires careful babysitting. That’s a very different product than what you sold them.
Archetype 2: The partial job
The agent completes 80% of the task, then either stops or hands things back awkwardly to the user.
You see this constantly in workflow agents and coding assistants. The agent will generate a function, scaffold a component, draft an email, and then either leave it at 80% with a “you’ll want to customize this” note, or it’ll finish and leave the user needing to manually do the final integration step that should have been part of the job.
This one is particularly damaging because the user can see the boundary of the agent’s capability. Every partial handoff is the agent pointing at its own ceiling. “Here’s where I stop. You take it from here.”
A few partial handoffs and the user stops delegating the end-to-end task entirely. They start breaking tasks into pieces themselves, handling the pieces they know the agent will drop, and only using it for the safe middle. Their usage looks fine in your data. But they’ve mentally written off whole categories of what your agent was supposed to do.
The agent didn’t fail. The task technically got a result. But the experience was exhausting in a way that makes the user less likely to delegate the next one.
Archetype 3: The efficient but cold execution
This one is especially pernicious in AI tutors and coding assistants. The agent completes the task flawlessly and tells the user absolutely nothing about why.
A student asks their AI tutor to explain a concept and asks it to work through a problem. The agent produces the correct answer with a clean, structured solution. Task complete. Except the student still doesn’t understand the underlying principle. They copied the output, submitted it, and learned nothing. Next week they’re back with an almost identical question, slightly reframed.
For coding assistants, the version is: the agent writes the function the developer asked for, in clean, working code. The developer copies it in, the tests pass, and they have no idea how it works or why the agent made the architectural choices it did. In two months, that code needs to be modified and nobody on the team understands it well enough to touch it safely.
Resolution rate: 100%. User capability delta: zero. Long-term product value: actively negative.
The agent completed the task so mechanically that the user came out worse off than if they’d struggled through it with a more scaffolded tool. And they don’t consciously articulate that. They just notice, gradually, that using the agent doesn’t feel like getting better at the thing. It feels like renting a capability they still dont own.
^ every “AI education startup” that built their product KPIs entirely around task completion rate
Why you can’t just ask users if they’re satisfied
The obvious fix is to add a satisfaction rating after each interaction. Thumbs up, thumbs down, five stars, NPS prompt. And yes, this gives you something, but it has three problems that make it insufficient on its own.
First, response rates are low. In production, you’ll typically see 5-15% of users actually rating any given interaction. That means 85%+ of your signal is invisible to you. And the users most likely to rate are the ones who had a strong reaction in either direction, not the majority who had the most common experience: an interaction that technically worked but felt slightly off.
Second, users aren’t always sure what they’re rating. After archetype 1 and 3 interactions especially, the user often doesn’t have a clear sense that the agent failed them. They have a vague sense of mild frustration or a feeling of not quite getting what they needed, but they’d rate it neutral-positive because the task did technically complete. You’d never see the signal.
Third, satisfaction prompts change behavior. The moment a user sees a rating prompt they become a rater, which is not the same mental mode as a user. You’re interrupting the natural flow and asking them to step outside the experience to evaluate it. The data you get is real but its filtered through the performance of being asked.
You need behavioral proxies. And luckily, they exist.
Behavioral signals that actually tell you whether satisfaction followed resolution
The most reliable indicators of satisfaction are behavioral, not stated. And they tend to show up in the minutes and days after an interaction, not during it.
Immediate re-delegation. After a completed task, did the user immediately give the agent the next one? If someone asks the agent to draft a cold email, then five minutes later asks it to draft a follow-up, that’s a strong satisfaction signal. If they never come back to this task category again, that’s something else entirely.
Output usage. Did they actually use what the agent produced? For content-generating agents, you can often infer this from clipboard events, export actions, or downstream activity in the product. For coding agents, did the code get committed? For document agents, did the draft move forward? A completed task whose output was immediately discarded or heavily reworked is a non-satisfaction event regardless of what the completion rate says.
Return pattern. Did they come back the next day? Not to anything in particular, just to the product. Satisfied users build habits. Unsatisfied users who are committed enough to not quit yet drift. Watch the interval between sessions for users in their first 30 days. A lengthening interval in that window is the satisfaction signal you’re missing.
Conversation scope after completion. After a successful task, do users bring harder problems or easier ones? Satisfied users push further into complexity, trying to extend what just worked. Unsatisfied users either stop or retreat to simpler, safer asks. Scope narrowing after task completion is one of the clearest indicators that resolution happened without satisfaction.
We track these signals across our customer base at Agnost AI and the pattern is consistent: you can have a team with a 90% completion rate and 60% of their “satisfied” completions are actually archetype 1 through 3 failures that just don’t show up in the count.
The long-term cost you dont see in your data
Here’s what makes resolution-without-satisfaction so dangerous compared to outright failure.
When an agent fails completely, users notice. They complain. They file tickets. They share the failure on Twitter. You get signal. It’s painful but it’s actionable.
When resolution happens without satisfaction, users don’t complain. They dont churn immediately either. They just… drift. They use the agent for simpler tasks. They start doing complex tasks manually again, quietly. They stop evangelizing it to their team. They renew their subscription out of inertia but they’re already half out the door.
There’s no cancellation event in your data. No churn spike you can point to. Just a slow erosion of the use cases the agent was actually supposed to own. Your metrics show flat engagement and you can’t figure out why your NPS is declining even though nothing seems broken.
This is especially dangerous for B2B agent products where usage expansion is part of the revenue model. If users get stuck in a narrow band of simple delegations because every time they tried something ambitious they got an archetype 1 or 3 response, your expansion motion is already dead. But it died quietly in individual conversations that each showed up as “completed” in your dashboard.
^ realizing your expansion pipeline died conversation by conversation, months ago, while completion rates looked fine
How to design agents that actually close the satisfaction gap
The fix isn’t to make agents perfect at every task. Its to design for the moments right after a task completes.
For archetype 1 (technically correct but off), the lever is proactive clarification and context-surfacing. Before completing a task, the agent should scan for ambiguity and name it. “I can do X as described, but it sounds like you might actually want Y. Want me to check before I start?” That single move, done consistently, converts archetype 1 failures into collaborative exchanges. Users feel heard. The output gets better. And the satisfaction gap closes.
For archetype 2 (partial job), the fix is explicit scope communication. If the agent can’t complete the full task, it should say so upfront and surface what the user will need to do to finish. Not at the end, where it feels like abandonment. At the start, so the user can decide whether to break the task differently. Managed expectations are infinitely more satisfying than surprised handoffs.
For archetype 3 (cold execution), the fix is building explanation into the output by default, not as an optional add-on. “Here’s the solution, and here’s why I structured it this way, and here’s the principle this is based on.” This takes roughly 15% more tokens and produces dramatically more satisfied users in learning and development contexts. The tradeoff is obvious. The adoption of it is not as widespread as it should be.
The common thread is that all three fixes require agents to have a model of what comes after the completion, not just whether the task is done.
How Agnost AI tracks satisfaction signals
Standard analytics wont show you any of this. Task completion rate is a server-side metric, its easy to log. Satisfaction is a downstream behavioral inference problem, and most teams dont have the conversation-level data structure to build it.
At Agnost AI, we built satisfaction signal tracking natively into the conversation analytics layer. After a completed interaction, we’re watching for immediate re-delegation, output usage signals, scope expansion or narrowing in subsequent conversations, and session return intervals all tied to the specific task categories that just completed. You get a satisfaction proxy score at the conversation level, not just a resolution boolean.
More importantly, when that score diverges from completion rate, which is exactly the pattern described above, you see it as a signal in your product dashboard before it shows up in your retention numbers. You can see that your technical-query category has a 92% completion rate and a 58% satisfaction proxy score. You can dig into the specific interactions that are completing without satisfying. You can see whether it’s an archetype 1, 2, or 3 pattern.
That’s the difference between knowing your agent “works” and knowing whether it’s actually building the kind of user relationships that expand and retain.
Wrapping it up
Resolution and satisfaction are not the same thing. In agent products they diverge in specific, predictable ways. And the divergence compounds silently in your data until you’re staring at flat engagement numbers and a completion rate that says nothing’s wrong.
The three archetypes, technically correct but off, partial handoff, cold execution, each erode user trust differently. But they all share one outcome: users who complete tasks with your agent but wouldn’t bet their most important workflows on it. That’s not the product you’re building.
The good news is this is measurable. Not perfectly, but directionally. The behavioral proxies exist. The conversation-level signals are there. You just need to be looking at them.
If you’re ready to stop treating task completion as a proxy for product health and start measuring what users actually do after the agent “completes” something, Agnost AI gives you the conversation-level satisfaction signals that standard analytics miss.
^ you, next week, explaining to the board exactly why engagement was flat despite a 90% completion rate
TL;DR: A 90% task completion rate can coexist with users quietly hating your agent. Resolution and satisfaction diverge in three predictable archetypes. Track behavioral proxies after task completion, not just whether the task finished.
Reading Time: ~10 min