No-result help desk searches: an intent classification protocol

Methodology and findings

Research question: What share of sampled no-result searches represents missing approved guidance rather than a search-language or service-routing problem?

Methodology and scope: Define a fixed observation window and eligible search surfaces. De-identify queries under approved rules, then have two reviewers code user intent, existing-answer match, vocabulary mismatch, unsupported request, protected decision, route failure, and final disposition. Publish the denominator and exclusions. This is a proposed operational study for OutsourcedHelpdeskServices.com. It reports no observed customer, ticket, or employee result.

Evidence basis and references: NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST SP 800-53 support accountable, reviewable controls. ICO guidance supports necessary and proportionate personal-data handling. GOV.UK guidance connects measures to user needs. CISA supports secure defaults and named security ownership. These primary sources shape the protocol but provide no local measurements.

Finding to test: The design tests whether article creation is the right response to a failed query instead of treating every no-result event as the same content gap.

Operational use: Improve titles or synonyms for existing answers, create pages only for stable approved needs, and repair routes for work that should not become public instruction. Record observations separately from reviewer judgments and later inferences.

Inference boundaries and limitations: Short queries can be ambiguous, search logs omit off-platform behavior, de-identification may remove context, and classification cannot establish what the user ultimately needed. Any result would apply only to the declared sample, period, definitions, systems, and available records. It could not establish causality, a universal benchmark, customer satisfaction, legal compliance, or performance outside the sample.

Publication note: Published September 10, 2026. A result report must disclose sample size, exclusions, missing data, denominators, reviewer agreement, protocol changes, and the access date for every reference.

Sources

1. NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 — Primary NIST framework for governing and measuring cybersecurity risk.
2. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 — Primary NIST control catalog covering access, audit records, configuration, and information handling.
3. ICO guidance on data minimisation — Regulator guidance on limiting personal data to what is adequate, relevant, and necessary.
4. GOV.UK Service Manual: measuring the success of your service — Government service guidance connecting performance measures with usability research and user outcomes.
5. CISA Secure by Design — Primary CISA guidance on secure defaults and accountable product security.