Nine out of ten of your people are using AI. Can you tell which ones are any good at it?
Most organisations cannot. A third of workers admit they have overstated their AI ability at work, and only about a third have any clear standard of what good AI use even looks like. So the honest answer, in most places, is no.
What we measure
Not whether someone can write a prompt. That is already commoditised, and half a dozen courses in this city teach it.
We measure judgement. Whether a person can look at how work actually moves through your business, identify where automation genuinely belongs, and recognise where it would make things worse or where a human has to stay in the loop.
That is the skill employers say they cannot find. It is also the one nobody assesses.
How it works
A structured, scored scenario. Twenty minutes per person. No preparation, because preparation would measure preparation.
Six criteria, each judged against written behavioural anchors by a trained assessor. Two of them are non-negotiable.
Twenty people takes about a day and a half.
What you get back
An individual record for each person, criterion by criterion, with the specific behaviour observed.
A distribution showing how capability is actually spread across your team.
And the finding that usually matters most: where capability breaks down in common. If eleven of twenty people fail on the same thing, that is not eleven individual problems. It is one organisational habit, and now it has a name.
What this is not
It does not predict job performance. It is not a psychometric or personality instrument. It does not produce hiring, promotion, or termination recommendations, and the terms we agree before starting say so explicitly.
It measures one thing, and it tells you which one.
Who it is for
Organisations where people are already expected to use AI, and somebody is accountable for whether they can.
If your team is not using AI yet, this is not useful to you.
Talk to us
Calgary, Alberta.