MUSYG · AI ADOPTION

Methods and protocols

Task-time evidence and transfer

This guide explains how to estimate human time without turning one study, one vendor case, or one organization into a universal productivity rate.

The unit of comparison is a bounded task or workflow with a countable output and an explicit acceptance threshold. Organization type is a context overlay for law, governance, data, procurement, scale, and controls. It is not the benchmark category.

Keep work mode, architecture, and authority separate

Work mode What moves Human role
Copilot One assisted step Operates every cycle and performs the external actions
Bounded automation A defined share of an eligible process Approves specified effects and handles exceptions
Strong automation Most eligible work from start to finish Sets goals and limits, reviews results, and handles exceptions

Multiple agents or large scale do not automatically make a system A4. Autonomy is determined by the effects the system may produce without a person, not by the reputation or size of the organization using it.

The registry uses work_mode for the work-sharing choice above. A model, fixed workflow, single agent, or orchestrated team is recorded separately, as is the exact A0 to A4 authority level. A study remains transferable when its task, accepted output, human role, and operating conditions are close enough; organization type alone neither permits nor prevents transfer.

Count human time, machine time, and elapsed time separately

For one eligible case:

local human-work floor = preparation + supervision + verification
                         + corrections + expected exception work

net human time with AI = max(source residual - setup already in that residual,
                             local human-work floor)
                         + extra work absent from both
                         + local amortized setup

net human time saved = baseline human time - net human time with AI

annual net human time saved = net human time saved per case
                              * eligible cases per month * 12

Expected exception work is the exception rate multiplied by human minutes per exception. Amortized setup divides one-off human setup hours across the selected number of months and eligible cases.

The source-implied residual is the human time that remains after applying one measured low, central, or high reduction to the local baseline. Taking the greater value prevents the calculator from hiding declared review work. It also avoids adding the source residual and local work together, which would count human time twice when their scope overlaps. Work absent from both must be added separately. If the source residual includes setup, remove that part before adding local setup. The removal cannot exceed the source residual. With no admitted source, or when you choose your own assumptions, use the local breakdown alone.

When the eligible share is zero, the net range is unavailable. There is no eligible case over which to allocate setup, so the calculator reports n/a instead of silently dropping the fixed cost. The copied pilot brief records the task profile, operating mode, output state, operator experience, human-work components, exception assumption, setup hours, amortization horizon, evidence identifier, and net method needed to reproduce the estimate.

The result may be negative. A slowdown is evidence and must not be replaced by zero. Machine runtime never counts as human time saved. A turnaround moving from three days to one day is an elapsed-time change unless human active minutes were also measured.

Quality, accepted throughput, straight-through completion, incidents, and the downstream outcome remain separate measures.

Evidence grades

Grade Measurement basis Default quantitative use
A Controlled or paired task-time observation Transfer only with a comparable task contract
B Field telemetry or objective operational measure Transfer only when it measures human time with a denominator
C Self-reported time or survey estimate Context for pilot design
D Published case or capability test without independently validated human-time comparison Mechanism and implementation context
E Model-estimated, synthetic, or planning-only value Named hypothesis only

The grade describes how the value was measured, not whether it is favorable. The machine-readable registry additionally blocks automatic quantitative use unless human active time was measured and the record is explicitly admitted for transfer.

Transfer states

The calculator compares six parts of the task contract:

  1. the target task profile;
  2. the work mode;
  3. the architecture;
  4. the exact A0 to A4 action boundary;
  5. the required output state;
  6. operator experience.

It returns one of four states:

State Meaning
Comparable The source may frame a low, central, and high test range
Use with caution The task matches, but one or more conditions differ. The range remains usable as a starting point and the differences stay visible.
Context only The source informs design but has no transferable human-time ratio
Not transferable The underlying task is too different for a quantitative transfer

These are minimum gates, not proof of equivalence. Before using a source, also compare input complexity, output unit, model and tool access, verifiability, quality threshold, exception rate, operator skill, and consequence of error.

What the current records demonstrate

Record Task Grade Published measure Quantitative use
Noy and Zhang Professional writing A 40% less task time and 18% higher evaluated quality Comparable writing tasks only
BCG jagged frontier Knowledge analysis inside the tested frontier A 22.5% to 27.6% less time across the two AI treatments Comparable reviewed analysis only
GitHub Copilot experiment Bounded greenfield HTTP server A 55.8% less mean completion time, with a wide confidence interval Comparable bounded implementation only
METR early-2025 study Real issues in mature known repositories A 19% longer, with a reported slowdown interval Comparable mature-repository work only
UK office trial Mixed civil-service workday C 26 self-reported minutes saved per day Context only
UK coding-assistant trial Mixed developer workday C 56 self-reported minutes saved per day and 15.8% line acceptance Context only
Customer-support deployment Issues resolved per agent-hour B 15% higher output rate (2025 publication) Capacity context, not task-time transfer
Anthropic conversation analysis Broad conversation-defined tasks E Model-estimated task savings concentrated at high values Context only
OpenAI harness project Agent-first software product D Internal estimate of roughly one tenth of manual coding time Transfer the mechanism, not the percentage

The registry records the exact source, measurement basis, task contract, preconditions, and transfer limits. Current frontier-company examples remain visible because their mechanisms may be useful. Their internal or model-based figures do not enter the calculator automatically.

How to use the interactive calculator

  1. Choose the closest countable task, not your organization type.
  2. Set the output state and operator experience.
  3. Read the evidence card and its transfer state.
  4. Enter the manual baseline, monthly volume, and eligible share.
  5. Open the human-time breakdown and enter preparation, supervision, verification, correction, exception, and setup time.
  6. Read the unadjusted source range and the resulting net low, central, and high range.
  7. Replace every planning input with pilot observations before a decision.

Do not add the source percentage or its residual minutes to the local work. The engine uses the adjusted source residual or local human-work floor, whichever is greater, then adds work missing from both and local amortized setup. The source still asks what happened in a comparable measured task. The net range shows what remains after the local controls and implementation effort are made explicit.

How the 11 worked cases are classified

Every worked-case result remains a grade E planning hypothesis. An external anchor can explain a mechanism or frame a separate range, but it never upgrades the synthetic case result.

Worked case Task profile Work mode Architecture A External anchor use
Micro-business customer requests Customer support Copilot Tool-assisted workflow A1 Output-rate context only
SME B2B quotes Knowledge analysis Bounded automation Business agent A2 Copilot mechanism context only
Nonprofit grant dossiers Information synthesis Bounded automation Business agent A2 Analysis context only
Public planning dossiers Information synthesis Bounded automation Business agent A2 Analysis context only
Independent client follow-up Professional writing Copilot One model A1 Comparable range may be tested separately
Independent follow-up agent Customer support Bounded automation Business agent A2 Output-rate context only
Orchestrated diagnostic Strong-automation project Strong automation Orchestrated team A3 Harness mechanism only
Read-only procedure RAG Information synthesis Copilot Tool-assisted workflow A1 No admitted time anchor
Predictive demand forecast Predictive decision support Copilot One model A0 No human-time ratio transferred
External customer chatbot Customer support Copilot Tool-assisted workflow A1 Staff-support outcome context only
Multimodal catalogue review Multimodal review Copilot One model A1 No admitted time anchor

The registry stores the complete rationale and the corresponding example files. This mapping is based on the task contract, not the organization label.

Machine-readable contracts

These ranges feed the hypothesis layer of 0.3. A field draft freezes the range, records the observed whole-workload result, and explains their gap. External studies do not populate field-notes/index.json; only genuine, independently reviewed and sanitized observations can satisfy its admission rule.

Recent cases available

The register now offers 19 sources, including 4 admitted human-time ratios. New cases also cover document checking, multimodal work, predictive optimization and agent teams. Other results remain useful for building assumptions.

Read each case’s mechanism and limits.

Explore three scenarios without inventing evidence

Open “Explore cautious, middle and favourable scenarios”. The main fields define the middle case. The optional margins add review time, exceptions and setup to the cautious case, and remove them from the favourable case. All margins are editable examples, not measured uncertainty. Zero is the lower limit for human work, and exception rates stay between 0% and 100%. Identical results remain possible when margins are zero or the study's remaining work dominates them.

Choose “My own demonstration assumptions” to explore a different implementation without using the study's percentage. The study stays visible for information. This is especially useful for strong automation: you can test its mechanism without calling a supplier estimate a measured result. No general savings cap is imposed. Negative savings remain visible when the work costs more time.

Example of overlapping work: a study suggests 30 minutes remaining and your breakdown contains 20 minutes of the same work. Keep 30, not 50. If another 5 minutes are absent from both, enter those separately: total 35 before local setup. If the 30 already includes 3 minutes of setup, remove those first: max(30 - 3, 20) + 5 = 32 minutes, then add local amortized setup.

The source details distinguish an average, differences between experimental groups, a statistical interval and an internal or model estimate. They also state when the work was observed, which model and tools were used, and what the time covers. None of these ranges is automatically a local confidence interval.

Scenario margins, the source/local choice and coverage adjustments are retained with the frozen hypothesis and its human-readable exports. Older saved sessions without these optional settings retain the previous calculation.

To print or save as PDF: Ctrl+P (⌘P on Mac).

Source and history · GitHub