Prunty, Jonathan, Tešić, Marko, Quinn, Patrick, Hernández-Orallo, José, Cheke, Lucy · Aug 26, 2026
arXiv cs.AI authors profile cognitive capability for workplace AI suitability
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors argue that organisations choosing which workplace tasks to automate, keep with people, or share need more than aggregate scores. Such scores offer little insight into where systems may succeed or fail, and human judgements of capabilities can quickly become outdated. They introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using shared cognitive dimensions. Cognitive capability profiling estimates an agent’s capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery; task requirements weighting uses domain experts’ judgements to rank the same capabilities for their work. The authors say the profiles can be updated independently and combined to estimate AI suitability for a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. They report validating capability recovery on synthetic agents, profiling six AI systems, and collecting task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. Their results show systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The authors present the scores as a comparative scoping tool for identifying candidates for piloting and areas where current systems may be poorly suited. They also discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems and inform human-machine task allocation.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Aug 26, 2026 (2026-08-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:06:21.372Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-10T02:56:10.160Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The abstract reports profiling and task-requirement elicitation, but does not report evaluations of the scores against outcomes from workplace deployments. The abstract does not detail the battery, the cognitive dimensions, or how the reported scores performed in identifying suitable tasks.
Open question
How well do the reported suitability scores identify workplace tasks that are promising for piloting or poorly suited to current AI systems?
Source-stated
The authors propose profiling agents and workplace tasks against shared cognitive dimensions, so the profiles can be combined to estimate AI suitability at several levels.
We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities.
Source-stated
The paper reports capability recovery tests on synthetic agents, profiles of six AI systems, and task requirements collected from 410 employees across six occupational domains.
We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains.
Source-stated
The authors report that AI systems varied more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities shared a cognitive core.
AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core.
Source-stated
The authors describe the scores as a comparative aid for selecting candidates for piloting and identifying areas where current systems may be poorly suited.
The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited.
Source-stated
The authors discuss extending the framework to include human workers and inform human-machine task allocation.
We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.
Source and contributor context
Prunty, Jonathan, Tešić, Marko, Quinn, Patrick, Hernández-Orallo, José, Cheke, Lucy · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 2f66f618-030c-4ee3-823d-a1f49d40bdc9.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 623bdaed3caba7fec6debd570c57705928b0b13d1ca15fe379f847d9ad4f8b93. Source text hash: 0d3806ee54f7d614762dfb3193334530fe8d235862b82d094a0b580d4049bb0c.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z
arXiv cs.AI authors profile cognitive capability for workplace AI suitability
The authors argue that organisations choosing which workplace tasks to automate, keep with people, or share need more than aggregate scores. Such scores offer little insight into where systems may succeed or fail, and human judgements of capabilities can quickly become outdated. They introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using shared cognitive dimensions. Cognitive capability profiling estimates an agent’s capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery; task requirements weighting uses domain experts’ judgements to rank the same capabilities for their work. The authors say the profiles can be updated independently and combined to estimate AI suitability for a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. They report validating capability recovery on synthetic agents, profiling six AI systems, and collecting task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. Their results show systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The authors present the scores as a comparative scoping tool for identifying candidates for piloting and areas where current systems may be poorly suited. They also discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems and inform human-machine task allocation.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Aug 26, 2026 (2026-08-26).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:06:21.372Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-10T02:56:10.160Z.
Limits
The abstract reports profiling and task-requirement elicitation, but does not report evaluations of the scores against outcomes from workplace deployments. The abstract does not detail the battery, the cognitive dimensions, or how the reported scores performed in identifying suitable tasks.
Open question
How well do the reported suitability scores identify workplace tasks that are promising for piloting or poorly suited to current AI systems?
Source-stated
The authors propose profiling agents and workplace tasks against shared cognitive dimensions, so the profiles can be combined to estimate AI suitability at several levels.
We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities.
Source-stated
The paper reports capability recovery tests on synthetic agents, profiles of six AI systems, and task requirements collected from 410 employees across six occupational domains.
We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains.
Source-stated
The authors report that AI systems varied more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities shared a cognitive core.
AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core.
Source-stated
The authors describe the scores as a comparative aid for selecting candidates for piloting and identifying areas where current systems may be poorly suited.
The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited.
Source-stated
The authors discuss extending the framework to include human workers and inform human-machine task allocation.
We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.
Source and contributor context
Prunty, Jonathan, Tešić, Marko, Quinn, Patrick, Hernández-Orallo, José, Cheke, Lucy · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 2f66f618-030c-4ee3-823d-a1f49d40bdc9.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 623bdaed3caba7fec6debd570c57705928b0b13d1ca15fe379f847d9ad4f8b93. Source text hash: 0d3806ee54f7d614762dfb3193334530fe8d235862b82d094a0b580d4049bb0c.
uncertain · 2026-11-10T03:02:57.201Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 2f66f618-030c-4ee3-823d-a1f49d40bdc9
attribution — pass: The reading consistently attributes the pipeline, results and proposed uses to the paper's authors. The title's 'arXiv cs.AI authors' is vague but not wrong. Optional repair: name the lead author (Jonathan Prunty et al.).
Authors:Jonathan Prunty, Marko Tešić, Patrick Quinn, José Hernández-Orallo, Lucy Cheke
summary — uncertain: The summary is faithful overall but omits the mechanism that links models to tasks: the benchmark items are annotated for their cognitive demands. Without that, readers cannot see how benchmark results become capability profiles. Central terms such as benchmark battery, capability recovery, synthetic agents and model families are unexplained for a general reader. Smallest repair: add 'annotated for the cognitive demands of each item' and briefly explain capability recovery on synthetic agents, for example via tooltips. 'Rank' slightly overstates the source's 'relative importance'.
Cognitive capability profiling infers an agent's capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery annotated for the cognitive demands of each item.
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-08-26 matches the v1 submission date. It is not the 4 Nov v2 revision or the November feed date.
[Submitted on 26 Aug 2026 (v1), last revised 4 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
support — pass: Every claim is source-stated with a matching excerpt. The limitations accurately note that the abstract reports no validation against real deployment outcomes. The question follows from the evidence without assuming an answer, and no benefits or costs are invented.
The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page, the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference