## 4 Results and Discussion
### A Thermodynamic Approach to Data Processing
The input variables were calculated based on data gathered in the second section of the questionnaire, taking into account the participants' responses and the trends ticked. The outputs (i.e., overall customer satisfaction considering the best-case scenario and overall customer satisfaction considering the worst-case scenario) were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scale (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) ***} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ***} \\ \cline{2-7}  & EX & VA & AN & EX & VA & AN \\ \hline CS–7\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.080 & 0 & 0.492 & CS–7\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.044 & 0 & 0.385 \\ QSP–6\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.005 & 0 & 0.329 & QSP–6\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.126 & 0 & 0.542 \\ SD–5\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.056 & 0 & 0.544 & SD–5\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.206 & 0 & 0.194 \\ TS–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.009 & 0 & 0.324 & TS–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.018 & 0 & 0.648 \\ BP–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.083 & 0 & 0.250 & BP–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.018 & 0 & 0.648 \\ OST–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.462 & 0 & 0.538 & OST–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* (l) very dissatisfied, (2) dissatisfied, (3) slightly dissatisfied, (4) slightly satisfied, (5) satisfied, and (6) very satisfied.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Values of Exergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scale (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) ***} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ***} \\ \cline{2-7}  & EX & VA & AN & EX & VA & AN \\ \hline CS–7\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.080 & 0.056 & 0.436 & CS–7\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.044 & 0.052 & 0.333 \\ QSP–6\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.005 & 0.167 & 0.162 & QSP–6\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.126 & 0.103 & 0.439 \\ SD–5\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.056 & 0.239 & 0.305 & SD–5\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.206 & 0.016 & 0.178 \\ TS–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.009 & 0.000 & 0.324 & TS–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.018 & 0.056 & 0.592 \\ BP–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.083 & 0.065 & 0.185 & BP–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0.018 & 0.056 & 0.592 \\ OST–3\({}_{6-1}\) & 0.462 & 0.538 & 0 & OST–3\({}_{1-6}\) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* (l) very dissatisfied, (2) dissatisfied, (3) slightly dissatisfied, (4) slightly satisfied, (5) satisfied, and (6) very satisfied.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Values of Exergy (EX), VAgueness (VA), and ANergy (AN) concerning participant one, for all areas included in the study (i.e., customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5 technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3)) in the worst-case scenario for both scales, i.e., from very satisfied to very dissatisfied, and from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. derived from data collected in the third section of the questionnaire. The effectiveness of the ANN model was evaluated using the confusion matrix displayed in Table 8.  
Figure 14: A schematic representation of the neural network model designed to predict customers’ overall opinions regarding the lab’s services. The inputs include the values of exergy (EX), vagueness (VA), and anergy (AN) across all study areas, customer service (CS–7), quality of service provided (QSP–6), support documentation (SD–5), technical support (TS–3), billing and payment (BP–3), and online services and tools (OST–3). The inputs are evaluated in both the best-case scenario (BCS) and worst-case scenario (WCS), and on both scales, from very satisfied (6) to very dissatisfied (1), and from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6). (* The data provided are for participant 1 and are used as an illustration).