Table 2From “Hybrid intelligence needs a boundary between capability and outcome”
Why is ongoing operational governance an intrinsic component of hybrid capability claims?
Table 2Why is ongoing operational governance an intrinsic component of hybrid capability claims?
| Prompt | Why it belongs in the construct boundary |
|---|---|
| What can the person inspect? | Transparency determines whether the machine contribution is challengeable |
| What can the person override? | Control determines whether human judgement remains meaningful |
| Who owns the decision? | Accountability prevents the machine label from becoming a responsibility gap |
| What is rewarded? | Incentives can change whether disagreement and correction are possible |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Source: Table from this essay. Sources and interpretation are given in the article.

From the essay
From the research bench
Hybrid intelligence needs a boundary between capability and outcome
Hybrid intelligence names complementary human and machine capability, not proof of better performance: define the construct before measuring the outcome.
Read the essayThis exhibit belongs to an essay: the numbers live here, the argument lives there.
Cite or embed
Related exhibits

Figure 1Figure
The hybrid-intelligence construct boundary
Hybrid intelligence needs a boundary between capability and outcome

Table 1Table
Why is hybrid intelligence a descriptive label rather than a validated scientific construct?
Hybrid intelligence needs a boundary between capability and outcome

Figure 1Figure
The incrementality causal measurement hierarchy
What is incrementality?
Contact
Bring the question you're working on.
Research, a guest lecture, or a commercial question.