LDR.1:4.7 - Reconstruct the arrangement when an AI can perform the contribution

Specify the contribution and its conditions before deciding which performer should remain human. Ask whether a qualified AI can perform the substantive reasoning, obtain a response, allocate a resource or execute a decision within an effective mandate. Establish its access, tools, operating capacity, permitted communication and exception route. The party granting the mandate needs authority to grant it; a provider’s capability claim does not supply that power.

Compare complete arrangements. If an autonomous agent can conduct the inquiry and make the bounded operational allocation, requiring a human to repeat every inference may add no needed result. Remove duplication only when the required guarantee and effective rules permit it. If a human decision, independent review or participant consent remains necessary, keep that precise contribution and its workload. Do not preserve a generic “human in the loop” while leaving its job unexplained.

The change can remove a meeting, combine preparation with performance or move the limiting resource to specialist access, physical execution or recipients’ response time. Recompute those dependencies and total costs. Cheap reasoning can make frequent internal reconsideration worthwhile while interrupting participants only when the new answer changes their work. Changed capability or lower coordination cost is a reason to reconsider the whole arrangement under C.11.DUA.