Skip to content
ObliNet

Scientific hypothesis

What the research will test

First modelling, then a limited pilot in a real organisation. Compare the protocol with a well configured ordinary workflow using the same tasks, data, resources and comparable AI support. Assess the contribution of meaningful confirmations and connected commitments: accepted outcomes, violations, recovery time after changes, errors and disputes, participant time and total costs. Benefits must justify additional work. Set success thresholds, stopping rules and evaluation procedures before trials; record negative and inconclusive results too.

How the protocol works

The ObliNet hypothesis is that aligning interdependent commitments can improve the achievement of system-wide goals while accounting for resources, time and total coordination costs and preserving participants’ autonomy. This research hypothesis proposes a possible improvement; its scope and effect size remain to be established experimentally.

Independent criterion

The primary criterion is actual achievement of system-wide goals specified in advance by an authorized party. Goals, criteria and constraints are not derived from the commitment network. Assessment includes quality, resources, elapsed time, total costs and autonomy, as well as the distribution of benefits and burdens.

Conditions for a positive finding

Before an experiment, select the primary measure of goal achievement, quality constraints and acceptable changes in costs and autonomy. Improvement in one indicator is not overall success if these constraints are violated. Numerical thresholds and task scope are not yet approved.

What may limit the hypothesis

Null effects, worse goal achievement, higher total costs or increased pressure on participants must count alongside improvements. Effects confined to specially selected scenarios limit transferability. A reasoned refusal may prevent failure; it must not automatically count as either success or violation.

Autonomy as a condition

Autonomy means a real ability to propose terms, give a reasoned refusal and choose actions within legitimate authority. It does not imply that local interests automatically align with system-wide goals. Conflicts must be addressed, with assessment of pressure, burden distribution and actual freedom of choice.