| Open-ended Agency | 1. Human SA (Extending Team SA) | 2. AI SA (Extending Team SA) | 3. Relational Interaction (Interrogating Team SA) | 4. Cognitive Learning (Interrogating Team SA) | 5. Coordination & Control (Interrogating Team SA) |
|---|
| Open-ended Action Trajectories | • Enables: Detection and interpretation of multi-step planning signals and implicit intent. • Strain: Interpreting “implicit commitment points” where paths shift. • Key Extending Angle: Transitions awareness from discrete states to structural, multi-stage trajectories. | • Enables: Proactive workflow optimization and anticipation. • Strain: Projection depth asymmetry and miscalibration of human response capacity. • Key Extending Angle: Operationalizes AI internal models to establish cross-system projection congruence. | • Enables: High-initiative collaborative productivity and exploration. • Strain: Fluctuating trust triggered by unforeseen trajectory deviations. • Key Interrogating Angle: Tests if relational legitimacy and social presence survive autonomous plan-shifting. | • Enables: Path-dependent accumulation of context-aware expertise. • Strain: Asynchronous updating and path-dependent lock-in on flawed intermediate task models. • Key Interrogating Angle: Probes whether structural paths amplify initial errors or facilitate corrective feedback. | • Enables: Adaptive long-horizon delegation and goal-based control. • Strain: “Silent” authority expansion as agentic scope evolves across stages. • Key Interrogating Angle: Governs the recursive drift of authority within high-dimensional, non-linear tasks. |
| Open-ended Representations and Outputs | • Enables: Rich, context-sensitive interpretation of task ambiguity. • Strain: Adjudicating the validity and warrant of non-binary, plausible intermediate states. • Key Extending Angle: Places human evaluative sensemaking as the anchor for team-wide epistemic grounding. | • Enables: Dynamic internal reasoning, reflection, and self-correction. • Strain: Opacity in reasoning logic and generative cue weighting. • Key Extending Angle: Renders agent internal states interpretable to assess representational alignment. | • Enables: Naturalistic, fluent communicative interaction and rapport. • Strain: Surface fluency masking hallucinations or miscalibration. • Key Interrogating Angle: Interrogates shared meaning-making when agentic outputs are contestable rather than factual. | • Enables: Expansion of human mental models via novel generative logic. • Strain: “Opacity gaps” masking gradual representational drift from broader human intent. • Key Interrogating Angle: Explores if epistemic uncertainty causes mental models to decouple despite surface agreement. | • Enables: Flexible evaluative criteria for subjective, generative tasks. • Strain: Output visibility without transparency of evolving decision logic. • Key Interrogating Angle: Balances human responsiveness with new anticipatory oversight checkpoints for outputs. |
| Open-ended Evolution of Objectives and Behavior | • Enables: Continuous adaptation to non-stationary team goals. • Strain: Projecting future paths under shifting value priorities. • Key Extending Angle: Shifts Team SA to track shifting objective configurations rather than static facts. | • Enables: Autonomous capability growth and adaptive role-taking. • Strain: Managing endogenous policy drift and regime shifts. • Key Extending Angle: Requires agentic awareness of internal drift to prevent divergence from the mission. | • Enables: Context-sensitive role adaptation and persona evolution. • Strain: Erosion of stable reliance patterns as governing logics shift. • Key Interrogating Angle: Challenges the stability of human-agent “bonding” under shifting agentic identities. | • Enables: Rapid adaptation through continuous representational updates. • Strain: Decoupling caused by asynchronous teammate adaptation rates. • Key Interrogating Angle: Probes the limits of shared SA as teammate logic diverges over evolutionary timescales. | • Enables: Fluid load-balancing via dynamic decision-right re-allocation. • Strain: Structural accountability ambiguity as objectives and incentives co-evolve. • Key Interrogating Angle: Ensures governance and incentives co-evolve with autonomy to prevent responsibility diffusion. |
| Proposed RQ & Rationale | • High-Level RQ: How should human SA at Levels 1–3 be operationalized as agentic agency evolves? • Rationale: Evaluative sensemaking is the foundational filter for all subsequent teaming dynamics. | • High-Level RQ: How can AI SA be operationalized to enable rigorous projection congruence assessment? • Rationale: Alignment requires treating agentic awareness as a measurable, operational construct. | • High-Level RQ: Under what conditions does open-ended agency enhance versus undermine relational legitimacy? • Rationale: Shared task representations alone are insufficient for maintaining social and trust stability. | • High-Level RQ: When does agentic learning favor convergence quality over mere updating speed? • Rationale: Agentic properties introduce structural tensions between adaptation velocity and model fidelity. | • High-Level RQ: How should authority, oversight, and incentives evolve under non-stationary objectives? • Rationale: Governance must prevent systemic incompatibility as agentic regimes and decision rights drift. |