Evidence note: AI-assisted independent knowledge work

Last checked: 18 August 2026. Version française.

This note explains the evidence behind the synthetic independent-work case. The people, clients, volumes, costs, and pilot results in that case are fictional. They are demonstration values, not an additional field study.

Useful anchors

• Dell'Acqua et al. studied 758 consultants. For tasks inside the model's capability boundary, participants completed 12.2% more tasks and worked 25.1% faster on average. On a complex task outside that boundary, they were 19% less likely to be correct.
• Noy and Zhang found faster work and higher average quality on controlled professional-writing tasks. The study did not measure rare errors or a continuing client relationship.
• The OECD SME report shows that simple, occasional, and peripheral uses remain more common than core-business uses. Its survey data describe use, not causal productivity.
• Dillon et al. found roughly two fewer email hours per week among active users later in a six-month experiment, but no aggregate change in task quantity or composition.

These studies can inform a starting range when the task, expected finish, human experience, and review process are close enough. They do not predict an independent professional's income or guarantee a time saving.

The worked case therefore keeps pricing, commitments, recommendations, and final decisions with the human. Its 23% saving is a labelled synthetic result for a copilot task, not a lower bound for a business agent or an orchestrated agency. See the work-mode evidence note for those distinctions.