Firstsource review

Each line is a datapoint with its grade. Grades are the ones the anchors act on: a sub-criterion scored 5 requires at least one E1 or E2 source, and evidence that is entirely E3 caps the sub-criterion at 3.

11 claims on this sheet, by grade: E1 5 E2 3 E3 2 E5 5 Counts sum above 11 because 4 claims cite more than one grade.

• Headcount 36,205 at 31 Mar 2026; FY26 revenue ₹95,564m (US$1,082m), up 19.7% year on year and crossing $1bn for the first time; 47 new logos added in FY26 Exchange-filed Q4/FY26 results, May 2026 E1
• CONFLICT within the company’s own filings: 51 delivery centres per the FY25 Annual Report; the FY26 results release states 9 countries while the Q3FY26 investor deck lists Turkey as a tenth and separately claims "60+ countries, 100+ offices" Q3FY26 earnings presentation E1E2
• Analyst coverage across three houses: Everest Group Leader and Star Performer in Banking Operations and Leader in Healthcare Payer Intelligent Operations; ISG Provider Lens 2025 Global Leader in Generative AI Services and Leader in Contact Center CX; NelsonHall Leader in Healthcare Payer Agility & Innovation and in Banking GenAI Q3FY26 earnings presentation E1
• The FY26 Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report, filed to NSE and BSE with Deloitte Haskins & Sells limited assurance, names ISO 27001, SOC 2, HIPAA and HITRUST as implemented standards — but no certificate number, issuing body, validity date or site-level scope is published in any source located FY26 BRSR filed with NSE/BSE E1E5
• No PCI DSS Attestation of Compliance, compliance level or card-network registry listing was found in filings, on the corporate site or in any third-party source — despite BFSI being 31.7% of Q3FY26 revenue and collections work being a core line Q3FY26 earnings presentation E5
• Publishes an unusually concrete Cyber Security Policy (v16.3, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 ISMS) documenting role-based access provisioned through ISAM, two-factor administration via PAM360, VPN 2FA, full-disk encryption, centralised SIEM with one-year retention, 24/7 SOC and clean-desk practice. The DPO function is assigned to Head-IRM with direct CEO access, but the holder is not named Firstsource Cyber Security Policy v16.3 — read on 26 Aug 2026, inside this edition’s evidence window; no longer retrievable at the published URL, or at any other path on firstsource.com, as re-checked 27 Aug 2026. The claim is kept because the document existed and was read; the reader should know it cannot now be opened. E3
• Glassdoor 4.1/5 across 4,299 reviews, 84% recommend, 91% CEO approval — set against company-filed trailing-twelve-month attrition of 29.7% in FY26 and 29.8% in FY25 Glassdoor, checked Aug 2026 E2E1
• Zero independent client reviews: the Clutch profile exists but carries none, and no G2 profile for the CX service line was located. A1 is therefore scored on the analyst-equivalence provision rather than on review evidence Clutch, checked Aug 2026 E5
• Ascensos, acquired Sept 2024 for £42m, publishes site-level language lists: Bucharest delivers Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German and Swedish with "over 14 languages" capability at 650 seats; Istanbul delivers English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Turkish, Polish and Arabic. No hiring post or client reference corroborating any individual language was located ascensos.com Romania E3E5
• An independent assessment of the Kairos platform (launched 16 Apr 2026) cites UK pensions digital engagement up 75% and resolution time down 20%, while stating that Firstsource "still hasn't published one named contact center customer showing the complete architecture" and that exit portability and ERP connector disclosure remain unproven CX Today, 2026 E2
• No QA sampling approach, scoring rubric or calibration practice is described anywhere in filings, on the site, or in analyst summaries located, and no COPC, ISO 18295 or ISO 9001 certification is evidenced. This is the single lowest sub-score in its tier and is recorded as an absence, not inferred firstsource.com, checked Aug 2026 E5

Computed from this provider’s anchor scores against the 29-provider field it is scored in, from the 11 public claims above: the sub-criteria where it sits furthest above the field median, and furthest below. Selection is by distance from the field, not by raw score — a 5 where most of the field scores 5 says nothing. These are scores for what a provider publishes, so a low score can mean a weak record or a quiet one, and this block cannot tell them apart.

Sub-criterion anchor scores in criterion order, with the weighted criterion total computed from them. Multiply each anchor by its sub-criterion weight over five and sum: that is the whole arithmetic, and it is why this total can be checked without taking anyone's word.

• Largest remaining evidence gap: no published QA methodology and no named client anywhere

Every line above is meant to be checkable. If a datapoint is wrong, out of date, or missing a certificate identifier we could not find, the corrections process is open: submit the evidence and the score is re-derived through the anchors. Facts are correctable; scores follow facts.