How the Co-Mind Work Map scores tasks
The Work Map classifies HR and Sales tasks into five collaboration zones based on where human judgment, AI capability, or their deliberate combination creates the most value. Here's how we score, why, and what research informs the model.
The Five Scoring Dimensions
Every task is scored on five dimensions, each rated 1–10. These dimensions capture the characteristics that research shows predict whether a task benefits most from human effort, AI capability, or deliberate collaboration between the two.
Cognitive Load
How much analysis, synthesis, and pattern recognition does the task require? Tasks with high cognitive load involve processing complex information, connecting disparate data, and drawing non-obvious conclusions.
Complexity
How many steps, dependencies, and contextual variables are involved? Complex tasks require navigating ambiguity, managing trade-offs, and making judgment calls where the "right answer" depends on context.
Creativity
How much novel thinking, ideation, or design does the task demand? Creative tasks produce original outputs — strategies, programmes, communications — rather than following established templates or rules.
Routine Level
How repetitive and predictable is the task? High-routine tasks follow consistent rules, produce similar outputs each time, and don't require judgment to handle variations. This is the strongest predictor of automation potential.
Social & Empathy
How much interpersonal interaction, trust-building, and emotional intelligence does the task require? Tasks scoring high on social demand human presence, reading between the lines, and navigating sensitive dynamics.
The Anthropic Economic Index found that social intelligence showed near-zero correlation with AI usage across all five of its parameters, positioning it as a durable human comparative advantage. Meanwhile, high cognitive load and complexity are the strongest signals for productive human–AI collaboration.
The Five Collaboration Zones
Based on its dimension scores, each task maps to one of five collaboration zones. These zones form a spectrum from fully human to fully automated — with Augment at the centre, where deliberate collaboration design creates the most value.
Human Essential
Tasks where human judgment, empathy, and presence are irreplaceable. AI has minimal or no role. These typically involve high-stakes interpersonal dynamics, ethical decisions, or situations requiring trust and confidentiality.
Human-Led, AI Assists
The human drives the task, but AI provides supporting inputs — data preparation, research, option generation. The human makes all decisions, shapes the output, and manages stakeholder relationships.
Augment
The sweet spot. Tasks where neither human nor AI alone produces the best outcome, but their deliberate collaboration does. AI handles pattern recognition, data processing, and first drafts; the human provides context, judgment, and refinement. This is where CoMindLab's approach creates the most value.
AI-Led, Human Oversight
AI does the heavy lifting — data processing, report generation, pattern scanning. A human reviews outputs, handles exceptions, and intervenes when the AI encounters edge cases or ambiguity.
Fully Automated
Rules-based, high-volume tasks with predictable inputs and outputs. No human judgment needed. These are the "set and forget" processes — scheduling, form processing, standard calculations.
Zone Classification Logic
The zone is determined by the dominant pattern across all five dimensions. Here's the decision matrix, applied in priority order:
| Zone | Primary Signals | Example Task |
|---|---|---|
| Human Essential | SOC ≥ 8 and RTN ≤ 3 | Conducting workplace investigations |
| Human-Led | SOC ≥ 5, CMP ≥ 6, RTN ≤ 4 | Strategic workforce planning with leaders |
| Augment | COG ≥ 7, CMP ≥ 6, RTN ≤ 5, SOC < 8 | Pay equity analysis |
| AI-Led | RTN ≥ 6, SOC ≤ 4 | Salary benchmarking & market analysis |
| Automated | RTN ≥ 8, SOC ≤ 2, CMP ≤ 4 | Payroll processing & reconciliation |
Important nuance: These are guidelines, not rigid rules. Some tasks have been manually classified where the dimension scores alone don't capture the full picture. For example, "ethics review of analytics models" scores high on COG (9) but is classified as Human Essential because the judgment required is fundamentally about values and fairness, not pattern recognition.
Research Foundations
The scoring model draws on multiple research streams, each contributing a different lens on how human and AI capabilities intersect at task level. Browse all 28 research sources with key excerpts →
How This Compares to Other Frameworks
Several major frameworks classify work tasks against AI capability. Here's how the Co-Mind Work Map relates to each:
| Framework | Approach | Our Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Economic Index | 7 dimensions, observational (actual AI usage patterns) | Our primary inspiration. We simplified 7 dimensions to 5 for usability, and added zone classification logic on top. |
| OpenAI "GPTs are GPTs" | Task exposure scoring (0/0.5/1) against O*NET | Binary exposure model. We extend this by measuring how AI should be involved, not just whether it can be. |
| Stanford HAI WORKBank | Human Agency Scale (H1–H5), expert-rated | Closest to our zones. Their H1–H5 maps directly to our Human Essential → Automated spectrum. We add dimension scoring for transparency. |
| BCG Jagged Frontier | Inside/outside frontier classification | Their frontier concept maps to our zone boundaries. We make the boundaries explicit with scoring rules instead of empirical task-by-task testing. |
| WEF Future of Jobs | Macro projections (% of task hours by category) | WEF projects at macro level; we apply at task level. Their 30%→33% collaborative task projection validates our Augment sizing. |
What makes our model different: Most frameworks tell you whether AI can do a task. We focus on how humans and AI should work together on that task. The five zones aren't just a classification — they're a design specification for building the right collaboration pattern.
Limitations & Honest Caveats
This model is a starting point, not a definitive classification. Important caveats:
- Tasks are generalised. The same task title can mean very different things in a 50-person startup versus a 50,000-person multinational. Context matters enormously.
- Scores reflect current AI capability (2026). The frontier moves. Tasks that are "Human Essential" today may shift as AI capabilities evolve — and vice versa.
- 8 tasks per role is a simplification. Most HR roles involve 20–40 distinct activities. We selected the 8 most representative to keep the tool usable.
- Organisational maturity varies. An organisation with mature data infrastructure will see different AI potential than one still running on spreadsheets.
- Regulatory environment matters. The EU AI Act classifies HR AI as high-risk. What's technically possible may not be legally permissible in all jurisdictions.
- This is not a replacement for human judgment about your own work. You know your tasks better than any model. Use this as a conversation starter, not a verdict.
Ready to map your work?
Explore the Work Map to see how roles break down across collaboration zones — with task-level scoring and use case recommendations.