HRM.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding

A reporting service needs two advisers. Its old test ranks unaided spreadsheet speed. Work analysis now shows that agents prepare the tables; advisers must frame client questions, identify unsupported conclusions and negotiate an actionable response. The owner constructs two representative cases with the provided agent and criteria covering those operations. A qualified assessor examines the work coverage, scoring and limits. One case contains missing client evidence; a warranted refusal to recommend is a successful response, not an incomplete answer.

Candidate A produces a polished recommendation but misses that absence. Candidate B identifies it, obtains the permitted clarification and supplies a usable bounded answer. Under the established critical condition, fluency does not compensate for the unsupported recommendation. The comparison favors B for this role, subject to the remaining eligibility and employment conditions. It does not establish B’s general intelligence or unaided spreadsheet mastery.

Now the proposed service must continue during agent outages. The owner may obtain fallback provision or require an additional human operation. Only after that choice should the assessment change. A blanket ban on tools would have tested a different job; a blanket promise that tools remove all human requirements would have missed the changed dependency.