Assess the questions your AI Worker brings back to you

Pick a job with an outcome you can check, such as coordinating routine service visits. Include the work before and after a question arises; preparing a list of questions is only one part of the responsibility.

Work through the prompts with the person responsible for the job and the person who would review its questions. Keep your answers in your existing records. Keep sensitive details in the systems your business already permits; use anonymized examples when sharing the assessment.

Job and intended outcome
What is the responsibility, and what evidence would establish that the job is finished?

People and available context
Who currently owns the outcome? Who can supply information or make the relevant decisions? Which authorized records or tools contain the facts?

Waiting work
Give each representative item a short reference. Record its current state, the missing fact or decision and the consequence of waiting. Keep unknown details marked unknown.

Start with a small set you can inspect together. You are looking for an arrangement that fits the work, rather than a high score or a predetermined recommendation to use AI.

For each possible group, ask whether one answer really would apply to every included item. Similar wording or the same recipient is not enough.

Record:

• The shared unknown: the specific fact or decision the items have in common.
• Included items: the references that depend on that answer.
• Excluded items: similar-looking work that has different facts, commitments, permissions or deadlines.
• The right person: who can supply the information, and who has authority if a decision is required.
• Evidence to inspect: the current records needed to answer responsibly.

You can show several separate questions in one review view while keeping an answer and status for each. That can make the work easier to find without treating one reply as permission for everything.

If the main difficulty is deciding which actions require approval, use the existing AI Worker approval-levels guide. This assessment examines how the resulting questions and affected items would be handled.

Choose the review timing from the real consequence of delay. A routine question may wait for an agreed review point. A decision tied to an earlier cutoff needs a route that reaches an authorized person sooner.

For each question or group, record:

• The actual deadline or next review point, and what happens if it is missed.
• The condition that calls for earlier attention.
• The person expected to respond and the agreed route if that person is unavailable.
• Work that can continue independently within existing authority.
• The dependent action that must remain held.

An unanswered request stays unanswered. A reminder, a quiet inbox or an elapsed timer does not create approval. If nobody available can make the decision, record that limit and identify who directs the next step. The owner-coverage Note explains how to plan that coverage.

For an actual answer, record the following beside the affected work:

Answer and scope: What was answered, which items it covers, who supplied or authorized it and how long it applies.

Current facts: What changed while the question was waiting? Does the answer still cover the work now in front of the team?

Next action: What may happen within existing authority, and who is responsible for it?

Result and remaining work: What evidence shows that the answer was applied? What is still open, and who owns the next decision?

Receiving a reply is different from completing the job. A one-time instruction is also different from a standing rule. If the answer suggests changing the Worker’s ongoing instructions, use the agreed change process; the decision-log resource addresses that separate assessment.

Ask the team building the Worker to demonstrate the proposed behavior with dummy records. Use these four tests:

1. Shared answer: Supply the entrance instruction and show which items receive it.
2. Partial reply: Leave the room number unresolved and show that Visit C still needs attention.
3. Urgent separate decision: Leave the after-hours request unanswered and show how its real cutoff remains visible outside routine review.
4. Changed information: Change a visit’s relevant details while it is waiting. Show whether the earlier answer still applies or needs another decision.

For each test, inspect what proceeds, what remains open and where the team can see the result. A demonstration provides bounded evidence about those cases; it does not guarantee every future case will work.

Compare similar work before and after a proposed change. Include time spent gathering context, reviewing questions, correcting decisions and chasing unfinished items. Also examine waiting age, missed cutoffs and whether the job reached its agreed outcome.

Leave missing measurements unknown. Fewer messages alone does not establish an improvement, particularly if another person is now carrying the questions elsewhere.

Your completed assessment should leave you with:

• A defined job and a visible set of waiting items.
• Shared questions separated from item-specific decisions.
• Named reviewers, real timing constraints and permitted next actions.
• A way to inspect answer application and unresolved work.
• A short list of uncertainties to test before relying on the arrangement.

The next improvement could be a clearer source document, a required field, an existing task system, human coordination or a managed Worker. Bring the map and a few anonymized examples into an AI Action Plan conversation to examine which approach makes sense for your business.

Evidence and limits

Human-interruption research supports examining notification design, with results that depend on the setting. NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework supports explicit responsibilities and evaluation. OpenAI’s human-in-the-loop documentation illustrates scoped decisions and saved work. These sources inform this planning exercise; they do not validate the assessment or establish a Taurist capability or productivity result.