A structured periodic reflection for organisations using AI, examining impact on the human conditions that determine whether a team can sustain healthy, meaningful and effective work over time.
Sustained productivity depends on organisational health. This instrument does not measure what AI produced. It examines what AI has changed for the people doing the work -- and whether those changes are making the organisation a healthier or more difficult place to operate in. The productivity argument follows from that.
This instrument has two versions — one for individual staff and one for managers. The questions are the same, but the framing differs, and the results are interpreted differently. Choose the version that fits your situation before you begin.
Your privacy — please read this
Your answers are completely private. Nothing you select is stored anywhere other than this browser, and nothing is shared with your employer or manager. When you complete the assessment, you will receive a personal disclosure code — a short summary of your scores. That code is yours to keep.
If your organisation is collecting wellbeing data, you may be asked to submit your code anonymously — for example through a form where you do not provide your name. The purpose of this is to understand how AI is affecting the team as a whole, so that better support can be designed. Your individual results are never reviewed by anyone else.
Answer honestly. The most useful results — for you and for your organisation — come from responses that reflect how things actually feel right now, not how you think they should feel or how you would like to present yourself.
Completing this as a manager
You are completing this instrument as a manager reflecting on your team. Your responses represent your view of how AI adoption is affecting the people you lead — not necessarily how those people experience it themselves. Both perspectives are valid and worth capturing separately.
If you want to understand how your team members actually experience AI adoption, encourage them to complete the staff version independently and submit their codes through a confidential channel. Comparing your management perspective with the team's own picture is where the most useful conversations begin.
Set the context
Define what this assessment covers. This shapes how results are interpreted and how the disclosure code is formed.
Select the unit you are reflecting on.
How often will this assessment be completed?
A name for this period, e.g. Q1 2026 or Year 1. Used in your benchmark view.
Please select a scope and review period before continuing.
Pillar detail
Your wellbeing disclosure code
Save this code. If your organisation collects wellbeing data, submit it through whatever confidential channel has been set up — for example, an anonymous quarterly form. Your name should never be attached to it. The code format is: [scope]-[period] then each pillar code and score (-6 to +6). Negative values indicate areas where AI use is contributing to strain.
Help shape this instrument
We are actively looking for organisations and individuals who want to improve and validate this instrument. Your experience — what worked, what did not, what was missing — directly shapes the next version. This is an open invitation.
How to use this view. Paste wellbeing disclosure codes from previous assessments to compare results across periods. Each code encodes all five pillar scores. This works for an individual tracking their own experience over time, or for a manager comparing team assessments across quarters. Add an example to see how the charts work before adding real data.
Add a period
Period label
Disclosure code
Format: [scope]-[period] | WC:±n RF:±n AM:±n OR:±n PS:±n (scores from -6 to +6)