When Not to Automate: A Formal Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15944v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:27:57 GMT
• Title: When Not to Automate: A Formal Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations
• Abstract summary: PHP-AIO is a five-gate sequential decision protocol with a final composite check.<n>It quantifies unpriced systemic risks at the role level and produces auditable automation decisions.<n>It produces distinct outcomes -- automate, augment, hybrid, and preserve.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance. PHP-AIO (Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations) is a five-gate sequential decision protocol with a final composite check that quantifies these unpriced systemic risks at the role level and produces auditable automation decisions. A closed-form automation-debt measure ($ρ(P)$) formalises how role-level decisions accumulate across multi-step processes; its warning is neutralised only by a regulator-mandated human-in-the-loop anchor. Applied to stylised profiles of representative internal roles, PHP-AIO produces distinct outcomes -- automate, augment, hybrid, and preserve -- for candidates that standard cost-benefit analysis would uniformly automate. Threshold sensitivity analysis confirms the gate decisions are robust to upward perturbations of at least 14% in three of four representative cases. Keywords: AI governance, automation decision, human oversight, tacit knowledge, organizational resilience, financial services

Related papers

• A Data-Driven Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing RPA Opportunities in Healthcare Processes [0.808778527821476]
  An estimated 30-50% of Robotic Process Automation initiatives underperform in U.S. hospitals.<n>We propose a four- module, data-driven framework unifying these decisions.<n>The framework is a conceptual synthesis of the literature rather than an instrument calibrated on primary hospital data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:55:28Z)
• The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem [3.4328929125111514]
  Existing AI governance frameworks address safety, transparency, and accountability but do not operationalize quantitative constraints on macro-socioeconomic stability.<n>We introduce the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a differentiable welfare metric that models the interaction between Agency, Wellbeing, and Economic Stability.<n>HUF yields a closed-form optimal automation level and a minimum redistribution threshold below which no level of automation is welfare-positive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T04:47:33Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• Economics of Human and AI Collaboration: When is Partial Automation More Attractive than Full Automation? [7.168698398166703]
  This paper develops a unified framework for evaluating the optimal degree of task automation.<n>We estimate an AI production function via scaling-law experiments linking performance to data, compute, and model size.<n>Full automation is often not cost-minimizing; partial automation, where firms retain human workers for residual tasks, frequently emerges as the equilibrium.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T01:18:10Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Quantifying Automation Risk in High-Automation AI Systems: A Bayesian Framework for Failure Propagation and Optimal Oversight [1.6328866317851185]
  We propose a parsimonious Bayesian risk decomposition expressing expected loss as the product of three terms.<n>This framework captures execution and oversight risk rather than model accuracy alone.<n>We motivate the framework with an illustrative case study of the 2012 Knight Capital incident as one instantiation of a broadly applicable failure pattern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-22T00:18:23Z)
• Agentic AI for Commercial Insurance Underwriting with Adversarial Self-Critique [0.0]
  This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism.<n>Within this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers.<n>The research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T05:51:27Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• E2E Process Automation Leveraging Generative AI and IDP-Based Automation Agent: A Case Study on Corporate Expense Processing [1.5728609542259502]
  This paper presents an intelligent work automation approach in the context of contemporary digital transformation.<n>It integrates generative AI and Intelligent Document Processing technologies with an Automation Agent to realize End-to-End (E2E) automation of corporate financial expense processing tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T05:21:08Z)
• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• ABI Approach: Automatic Bias Identification in Decision-Making Under Risk based in an Ontology of Behavioral Economics [46.57327530703435]
  Risk seeking preferences for losses, driven by biases such as loss aversion, pose challenges and can result in severe negative consequences. This research introduces the ABI approach, a novel solution designed to support organizational decision-makers by automatically identifying and explaining risk seeking preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T23:53:46Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.