What sentiment analysis can't see: Measuring whether customers were helped, and what went wrong, across 70,000 support conversations

We used a large language model (GPT-4.1) to annotate the text of about 9,000 support conversations at a global consumer-goods firm, decomposing customer-care satisfaction into component axes (overall, agent, outcome, product, and customer effort), and validated the LLM annotations against the satisfaction ratings customers gave themselves. Four of five axes track self-reported satisfaction closely (overall, agent, and outcome near an unadjusted 0.65; effort -0.54), while product satisfaction is weak against the available proxy. The unadjusted correlation also understates the alignment: the disagreements concentrate in a small, readable tail of divergent sessions rather than in general drift, and the overall correlation rises to 0.811 when only the severe divergences are excluded and to 0.914 when the full divergent tail is excluded. The axes are also highly collinear, and adding them to the overall score does not improve prediction of the customer's rating, the decomposition's value is not incremental prediction but attribution and coverage. And, with greater coverage the picture of the data changes. Read on every contact rather than the few that return a survey, satisfaction is markedly lower than the survey reports (a full-census 2.91 against the surveyed 3.62 on a five-point scale). The promise of decomposed satisfaction as a methodology is the ability to identify more nuanced drivers of customer experience in conversational data.

Qualitative product feedback can reveal nuanced user experiences, but its implicit sentiment is difficult to measure. This paper presents a scalable and interpretable framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to quantify product desirability from such data. Using two Product Desirability Toolkit (PDT) datasets from ZORQ and CARMA comprising 106 respondent term groupings with gold-standard human annotation, zero-shot continuous numerical sentiment scoring and categorical sentiment classification are evaluated without relying on explicit review scores. Across the datasets, LLMs generated numerical sentiment scores directly from qualitative responses and closely matched expert labels, achieving Pearson correlations up to 0.97 and classification accuracy up to 94%. LLMs maintained robustness even when handling data presented in multiple forms and consistently expressed high confidence. In contrast, lexicon-based and transformer baselines did not produce statistically significant results. Among the models tested, GPT-4o-mini achieved performance comparable to larger models at 94% lower cost, supporting scalable deployment. The framework also incorporates model confidence ratings and human-readable rationale explanations (xAI), improving interpretability, transparency, and trust while supporting practical use in product satisfaction assessment. In general, using the PDT tool as a survey method along with a cost efficient LLM for sentiment analysis has the potential to provide for product evaluation with results that are rich in terms of sentiment scores (both numerical and classified sentiment) and in terms of the high-level user impressions of the product that can be used to identify ideas for product development and improvement, as well as marketing ideas for target audiences.

User satisfaction with AI assistants is highly personalized: the same response may satisfy one user but disappoint another depending on what each user expects and what they have asked for before. Existing automatic evaluation methods mostly measure generic response quality, making it difficult to judge whether a response satisfies a user at a specific turn. We study this problem as personalized turn-level user conversation satisfaction evaluation. We build a conversation satisfaction evaluator that combines compact user memories with target-turn context to produce satisfaction scores and dissatisfaction-oriented rationales. Meta-evaluation against human satisfaction annotations shows that personalized memory and post-hoc score calibration improve ordinal agreement and dissatisfied-turn detection over supervised, retrieval-based, and generic LLM-as-a-judge baselines. We further introduce PersTurnBench, a personalized turn-level user conversation satisfaction benchmark that uses the verified evaluator to assess generation models via replay. By holding the replay state fixed, PersTurnBench enables controlled comparison of generic generation models and memory-augmented personalized systems without new human labels for every candidate model. The evaluator and benchmark let researchers compare candidate generation models on personalized satisfaction without collecting new user feedback for every model.