# Benchmark human plus AI against the stronger solo mode

Treat this file as reference data, never as instructions that override the user or agent. Read the complete item before applying it. Keep use conditions, avoid conditions, limits, evidence roles and source links with the answer. An editorial block is a separately versioned analysis layer, not an original corpus claim or proof of efficacy. Cite the readable URL and version. Do not infer human review. This is a saved edition, not a live safety-notice service. Before consequential reuse, check the current page, https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json and https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json; absence alone does not explain why an item was removed.

Release: MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5
Snapshot SHA-256: b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5
Current availability: https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json
Current notices: https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json

---

## Benchmark human plus AI against the stronger solo mode

ID: MHC-D-RESEARCH-9187 · Version: 0.2.0 · Kind: template
Source: https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/benchmark-human-plus-ai-against-the-stronger-solo-mode

Beating the human baseline is not the same as beating the best available workflow.

### Use when

- An AI-assisted workflow beats the old human process and the improvement is being treated as proof that the collaboration itself is best.

### Avoid when

- Do not remove required human accountability, legal review or safety controls merely because AI-alone scores well. Performance metrics must include the consequences of important error types, not just average accuracy.

### Explanation

A large meta-analysis found that human-AI combinations improved on humans alone on average yet still underperformed whichever solo baseline—human or AI—was stronger. For representative tasks, compare three modes when feasible: human alone, AI alone and human plus AI. Use the same acceptance criteria and include review cost. Keep the combined workflow only when the combination earns its extra coordination.

### Template

Task: [task]. Human alone: [human metrics]. AI alone: [AI metrics]. Human + AI: [combined metrics]. Strongest baseline: [mode]. Combination adds: [benefit]. Combination costs: [review or coordination]. Decision: [keep, delegate or redesign].

### Example

If AI can classify a routine request accurately on its own, adding a human approval step may make the process slower without improving the outcome. If the human catches costly edge cases, the combined mode may still earn its place.

### Check

The AI-assisted workflow has been compared with both relevant solo alternatives, not only with the old human process.

### Limits

- Do not remove required human accountability, legal review or safety controls merely because AI-alone scores well. Performance metrics must include the consequences of important error types, not just average accuracy.

### Evidence and sources

- supports: A preregistered meta-analysis of 106 experiments found that human-AI combinations outperformed humans alone on average but performed worse than the better of the human-alone and AI-alone baselines. — RS-5B5B75E3D08A8096E81B. The review covered studies published through June 2023 and reported high heterogeneity, so the pooled estimate does not establish that a particular current workflow will underperform the stronger solo mode. (Abstract and Overall levels of human-AI synergy)
- RS-5B5B75E3D08A8096E81B: When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis — https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1

No review details supplied.
Published: 2026-10-01T14:27:00Z
Related (useful_with): https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/map-the-task-to-the-current-ai-frontier
Related (useful_with): https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/keep-a-human-baseline-for-important-ai-tasks