Phishing Simulation Results & Training Follow-Up
Phishing simulation platforms report who clicked and who didn't, and the standard response is assigning the same generic security awareness module to everyone who clicked, regardless of what actually fooled them — a fake invoice attachment is a very different failure mode from a spoofed executive urgency email, and training that doesn't match the specific trick that worked tends not to change behavior for the next, differently-styled attempt. Meanwhile employees who fail simulation after simulation, quarter after quarter, often get the exact same generic module reassigned each time with no escalation, no different approach, and no signal to their manager that this is now a repeat pattern worth a different intervention.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 2-4 hrs per simulation campaign of manual results sorting plus measurably better training targeting and repeat-failure detection.
How the automation works
We take simulation results and classify each failure by the specific phishing technique that worked — urgency-based social engineering, a spoofed internal sender, a credential-harvesting landing page, a malicious attachment — and assign targeted training content matched to that specific technique rather than a one-size-fits-all module. Repeat failures from the same employee, especially against the same technique type, escalate to a different intervention: a shorter follow-up simulation to confirm the training landed, then a manager conversation if the pattern continues, rather than cycling the same person through the same generic training indefinitely. Aggregate results by department and technique type also roll up for security leadership, showing which attack styles the organization is broadly vulnerable to, which is useful for planning future simulation campaigns and broader awareness efforts.
Process flow
- 01
Ingest simulation results trigger
Results from each phishing simulation campaign are pulled in as the campaign concludes, including who clicked, who reported it, and what specific email variant was sent.
- 02
Classify failures by technique ai
Each click or credential-entry failure is classified by the specific phishing technique used — urgency social engineering, spoofed sender, malicious attachment, credential harvesting.
- 03
Assign targeted training ai
Training content matched to the specific technique that fooled the employee is assigned, rather than a generic module unrelated to what actually happened.
- 04
Track repeat failures and escalate ai
Employees failing multiple simulations, especially against the same technique, are flagged for an escalated intervention rather than repeated generic reassignment.
- 05
Roll up trends for security leadership output
Department and technique-level failure trends are aggregated separately from individual follow-up, informing future simulation campaign design and awareness priorities.
Inputs
- Phishing simulation platform results
- Training content library mapped to technique type
- Employee training completion history
- Manager and department org mapping
Outputs
- Technique-matched training assignments
- Repeat-failure escalation flags
- Department/technique-level trend report for leadership
- Individual training completion tracking
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Publicly or visibly shaming employees who click, even indirectly through a training assignment that feels punitive, tends to make people less likely to report a real phishing email out of embarrassment next time — follow-up needs to stay framed as skill-building, not discipline, especially for a first-time click.
- Simulations that are unrealistically obvious or unrealistically sophisticated compared to real attack attempts your organization actually receives produce training data that doesn't generalize — the technique classification and targeted training are only as useful as the simulation campaigns being reasonably representative of real threats.
- Escalating every repeat failure to a manager conversation regardless of role and access level treats a repeat click from someone with no access to sensitive systems the same as a repeat click from someone with financial system access, when the actual risk represented by the two is very different — escalation severity should weight the employee's access level, not just click count alone.
- Aggregating results by department without accounting for department size skews comparisons — a small department with two clicks out of five people looks dramatically worse than a large department with ten clicks out of two hundred, even though the larger department has the bigger absolute exposure; trend reporting needs rate, not raw count, to be a fair comparison.
Frequently asked questions
Does this replace our phishing simulation platform?
No, it works on top of whichever simulation platform you already run, adding technique-matched training routing and repeat-failure tracking to the raw results the platform generates.
How does it avoid feeling punitive to employees who click?
Training assignments are framed around building the specific skill that would have caught that technique, and escalation only kicks in for a genuine repeat pattern, not a single click, which most security awareness programs treat as a normal, expected part of training rather than a failure.
Does every repeat failure get escalated to a manager?
Escalation severity is weighted by the employee's access level and the repeat pattern's specifics, so a low-access employee's repeat click on a simple simulation isn't automatically treated the same as a high-access employee's repeat failure.
Can it show which departments are most vulnerable to specific attack types?
Yes, aggregate trend reporting breaks results down by department and technique type, using failure rate rather than raw count so comparisons across differently sized departments stay fair.