Using profiles of cognitive capability to assess AI suitability for workplace tasks

Organisations deploying AI face a scoping problem: which tasks can be automated, which should remain with humans, and which are best shared between the two. Aggregate benchmark scores provide little insight into where systems will succeed or fail in practice, while human judgements of model capabilities quickly become outdated. We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities. Cognitive capability profiling infers an agent's capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery annotated for the cognitive demands of each item. Task requirements weighting elicits from domain experts the relative importance of these same capabilities for their work. As both use a common set of cognitive dimensions, they can be updated independently as models and roles change, and combined to estimate AI suitability at the level of a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited. We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.

Grouping the Stochastic Machine: Precision, Not Capability, as the Frontier Metric for AI Systems

Frontier language models are compared, marketed, and benchmarked on capability -- what their best or average output can achieve. I argue this measures the wrong axis. The models have saturated accuracy: their mean output lands on the target. What now separates one system from another in practice is precision: how tightly concentrated their outputs are around that target across repeated, identical requests. Borrowing the marksman's distinction, capability is where the average shot lands; reliability is the size of the group. I make three claims. First, precision, not capability, is the frontier differentiator between systems, and benchmark culture systematically fails to measure it, reporting central tendency rather than spread. Second, precision is measurable, cheaply and without circularity, by running a fixed suite of deterministically scored tasks many times at fixed temperature and computing the per-task consistency of outcomes -- no model-in-the-loop grader required. Third, the measurement is not merely descriptive but decision-guiding: it separates consistent failures (a tight group off-centre, correctable by the operating discipline of Paper 1 -- a sight adjustment) from scattered failures (a wide group, correctable only by changing the model or its sampling -- a rifle problem). I define a grouping metric, specify a harness, and show how tracking a human-AI pair's grouping over time yields the compounding signal that Paper 1's field study requires. A first real run, since replicated, illustrates both the method and its most important limit: one measured gap was closed completely by a single rule (0/5 -> 5/5), while a suite of tasks authored from the rules themselves found no value, because a frontier model already embodies explicit good practice -- establishing that a discipline's worth is found by measurement on real work, not constructed from its own rulebook.

Benchmark-Based Comparative Assessment of Publicly Benchmarked Indian Foundation Models: A Capability and Evaluation-Maturity Framework

Governments increasingly fund indigenous foundation models to strengthen national AI capability, digital sovereignty, and multilingual computing. Assessing the progress of such national ecosystems is complicated by inconsistent benchmark reporting, proprietary evaluation methodologies, and rapidly evolving model releases. This paper presents a structured, benchmark-based comparative assessment of publicly benchmarked Indian foundation models against global frontier and comparable-scale models, across eight capability domains: general-purpose reasoning, coding and software engineering, agentic AI and computer use, cybersecurity, vision and image understanding, video and multimodal understanding, scientific research, and Indic language capability. Using only publicly reported benchmark results, we find that Indian models achieve strong scores on established benchmarks such as MMLU and MATH-500. However, these benchmarks are now widely regarded as saturated, and frontier developers no longer report them. Indian models participate far less frequently in newer, agentic, and domain-specialized evaluations. Benchmark participation is also highly uneven across Indian organizations. Among the models surveyed, Sarvam AI reports the broadest benchmark coverage by a substantial margin. We propose an exploratory four-dimension Benchmark Maturity Index (BMI), scoring each capability domain on standardization, participation, independent verification, and national coverage. We show that the BMI refines, and in some cases revises, the maturity judgments that a purely descriptive review would produce. We argue that many apparent capability gaps in the public record cannot be distinguished, on available evidence, from evaluation-ecosystem gaps. This has direct implications for how national AI programs should design monitoring and funding criteria.

Measuring Intelligence Beyond Human Scale

How can we measure intelligence beyond human capability? Human-authored benchmarks saturate, and above human capability, examiners may not know which tasks are both hard and verifiable. We argue that this difficulty is inherent to absolute-scale evaluation and propose a new paradigm based on relative measurement in which models generate public challenges that separate other systems. Aggregating these outcomes yields an adversarial psychometric rating system that can scale with the systems being measured. We describe practical protocols that reduce incentives for private-information attacks, support judge-free adjudication, and naturally scale with agent capabilities. We instantiate the framework across verifiable and open-ended, non-verifiable domains, illustrating how model-generated evaluation can continue to measure systems beyond the human frontier.

Meta-Benchmarks for Financial-Services LLM Evaluation

Public LLM leaderboards optimise for global average performance and do not capture the specific cognitive demands of financial-services work: a model that leads on MMLU-Pro may underperform on document-grounded compliance reasoning, and a coding leader may handle multi-turn customer interactions poorly. We present a meta-benchmarking framework that organises 452 publicly reported benchmarks into 41 O*NET Generalized Work Activities and aggregates those into 38 BIAN banking business domains spanning sales, operations, risk, and support work. A multiplicative weighting scheme (discrimination x coverage x recency), computed over a rolling model window, rewards benchmarks that still separate the best models, are widely reported, and remain in active use, suppressing saturated legacy tests automatically. These weights scale the K-factor in a pairwise Elo tournament, producing cross-benchmark-comparable work-activity scores without raw score normalisation; business-domain scores are weighted averages of the constituent work-activity Elos. We demonstrate the framework on a point-in-time public snapshot covering 288 models across 25 organisations as of June 2026, and describe the methodology, full taxonomy, design decisions, and limitations with the aim of making the approach reproducible for institutions facing similar selection and governance challenges.

Flaws in the LLM Automation Narrative

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.