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.
Most companies read their customer support data at scale using sentiment analysis, which measures how customers sound rather than whether they were satisfied with the result. We tested a richer alternative on 70,450 support conversations from a leading online fundraising platform: alongside tone, we used GPT-5.4 to estimate each customer's satisfaction and to flag whether they reported a concrete problem, then validated all three readings against the 1-to-5 ratings customers left on the conversations they rated. The satisfaction estimate tracked those ratings far better than sentiment did, correlating at 0.47 against 0.36 and flagging unhappy customers with far fewer false alarms. The structured read also sees what sentiment cannot: tone and satisfaction disagree in 44% of conversations, a single "Neutral" label hides everything from quietly satisfied customers to ones who quietly gave up, and the largest group of all is "tolerated friction," customers who are satisfied but still reporting a fixable problem, a standing issue that no sentiment-based dashboard can surface. The broader finding is that LLM-based annotation can capture far more than the tonality of a customer's language, offering strong potential for new business metrics grounded instead in the customer's state (whether they were satisfied) and the cause of their problem extracted directly from the raw textual data of interactions and feedback.
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.
An earlier paper (Hong, Potteiger, and Zapata 2026) established that an unoptimized GPT 4.1 prompt predicts fan-reported experience ratings within one point 67% of the time from open-ended survey text. This paper tests the relative impact of prompt design and model selection on that performance. We compared four configurations on approximately 10,000 post-game surveys from five MLB teams: the original baseline prompt and a moderately customized version, crossed with three GPT models (4.1, 4.1-mini, 5.2). Prompt customization added roughly two percentage points of within +/-1 agreement on GPT 4.1 (from 67% to 69%). Both model swaps from that best configuration degraded performance: GPT 5.2 returned to the baseline, and GPT 4.1-mini fell six percentage points below it. Both levers combined were dwarfed by the input itself: across capable configurations, accuracy varied more than an order of magnitude more by the linguistic character of the text than by the choice of prompt or model. The ceiling has two parts. One is a bias in how the model reads text, which prompt design can correct. The other is a difference between what fans write about and what they actually decide, which no engineering can close because the missing information is not in the text. Prompt customization moved the first part; model selection moved neither reliably. The result is not that "prompt engineering helps a little" but that prompt engineering helps in a specific and predictable way, on the part of the ceiling it can reach.