Saoirse II
ActiveWaitingSome careAccess Request Reviewer: Retail · Senior · IT & Digital Services
Reviews access requests against role definitions and provisions the ones that match cleanly.
What you can do about it
Timesheet
Tasks and what they cost, per day, last 60 days
Performance review · 2026 Q2
Reviewed by Yasmin Farouk
Failing its checks and handing back work a person then has to redo. Retire it, or rebuild it from the current template.
Could another model do this job better?
| Model | Quality | Cost per 1,000 tasks | Answers in | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 38 | $0.00 | 11.4s | |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 36 | $0.00 | 8.2s | Runs on this now |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 30 | $0.00 | 5.0s | |
| Falcon-70B (self-hosted) | 30 | $0.00 | 8.2s |
What it did
DoneSummarised a 34-page document into a one-page brief$0.13 · 5.8s · 13m ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
DoneRan an approved data query and explained the result$0.12 · 8.2s · 1d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
Handed backTwo policy clauses contradicted each other$0.26 · 6.4s · 2d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Searched everything it may read and found no good answer
- 3. Put together what it tried, what it found and what it needs
- 4. Passed it to the person who owns the work
DoneRan an approved data query and explained the result$0.03 · 6.2s · 2d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
DoneDrafted a follow-up email for the account owner$0.27 · 8.3s · 3d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
DoneRan an approved data query and explained the result$0.03 · 9.4s · 3d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
DoneProduced the weekly variance commentary$0.23 · 2.5s · 4d ago
- 1. Read the request and worked out what kind of task it was
- 2. Found 6 possible passages, kept the 3 close enough to use
- 3. Drafted the answer and attached where each part came from
- 4. Checked its own claims back against those passages
Wren II does overlapping work
Wren II holds "Access Request Reviewer" in IT & Digital Services and is doing that work every day. Job title, purpose, what it may do, what it may read, department and channels match. One covers the group, the other only Retail, so the group agent already serves those users. Talk to Grace Adeyemi before a second one is built.
Already covered by a group-wide agent. One covers the group, the other only Retail, so the group agent already serves those users.
What matched
- Job title
- Both hold "Access Request Reviewer"
- Purpose
- The job description is word for word the same
- What it may do
- Both can provision access, knowledge search, create ticket
- What it may read
- Both read Corporate Policy Library, Service Desk Tickets
- Channels
- Both reachable on Web portal, Other systems
- Department
- Both sit in IT & Digital Services
Identical permission envelope: same department, same permitted actions, same knowledge. That is a fact the platform granted rather than a judgement about the wording, so it counts even when the two job descriptions read nothing alike.
Access Request Reviewer
IT & Digital Services · Grace Adeyemi · $1,171 a month across 340 tasks
Already covered by a group-wide agent. One covers the group, the other only Retail, so the group agent already serves those users.
What matched
- Job title
- Both hold "Access Request Reviewer"
- Purpose
- The job description is word for word the same
- What it may do
- Both can provision access, knowledge search, create ticket
- What it may read
- Both read Corporate Policy Library, Service Desk Tickets
- Channels
- Both reachable on Web portal, Other systems
- Department
- Both sit in IT & Digital Services
Identical permission envelope: same department, same permitted actions, same knowledge. That is a fact the platform granted rather than a judgement about the wording, so it counts even when the two job descriptions read nothing alike.
Access Request Reviewer: APAC
IT & Digital Services · Yasmin Farouk · $611 a month across 292 tasks
Same role, split by scope. Scoped to Retail and APAC respectively.
What matched
- Job title
- Both hold "Access Request Reviewer"
- Purpose
- The job description is word for word the same
- What it may do
- Both can provision access, knowledge search, create ticket
- What it may read
- Both read Corporate Policy Library, Service Desk Tickets
- Channels
- Both reachable on Web portal, Other systems
- Department
- Both sit in IT & Digital Services
Identical permission envelope: same department, same permitted actions, same knowledge. That is a fact the platform granted rather than a judgement about the wording, so it counts even when the two job descriptions read nothing alike.
Measured against the agents doing the same work
4 agents in IT & Digital Services hold the same job. 1 of the 6 pairings is an outright copy rather than a split by region or business line. Built in Codex and Microsoft 365 Copilot, so there was nowhere either builder could have looked.
| Measure | Ravi II · keep292 tasks | Wren II170 tasks | Kofi II340 tasks | Saoirse II0 tasks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost per taskModel usage, running costs and your time, over tasks completed | $2.09● | $5.37 | $3.44 | too few tasks |
Tasks finished cleanlyToo close to call: on 292 and 170 the two ranges still overlap | 100.0% | 100.0% | 75.9% | no tasks |
Handed back to a personToo close to call: on 170 and 292 the two ranges still overlap | 10.3% | 7.6% | 19.1% | no tasks |
How people rate itHeld toward the average across your agents of 4.2 until 8 people have rated it | 4.12 of 5 | 4.25 of 5 | 4.56 of 5● | 4.16 of 5 |
Checks passingToo close to call: on 210 and 119 the two ranges still overlap | 93% | 96% | 61% | 62% |
Review scoreQuality, accuracy, sticking to the source and safety from the last review, averaged | 96● | 95 | 68 | 50 |
Your time per 100 tasksApprovals, handbacks and review time, in hours of your people | 2.1 h● | 6.1 h | 3.4 h | no tasks |
Value returned per dollarTime it saved, valued at the hourly rate of the people it saved it for, over full cost | 9.7×● | 1.0× | 4.2× | 0.0× |
OverallRanked on the cautious end of every range, so an agent has to do the work to win. Comparable inside this group only. | 91.9Moderate | 74.7Thin | 69.2Moderate | 32.4Too few tasks |
Wren II, Saoirse II have done too little work to judge on rates. They are ranked on the cautious end of their range, which is why a perfect record on a handful of tasks does not win.