---
title: Defining AI and Human Contribution at Work
description: Where AI contributes, where people must, and how to draw the line in your own workflows, with research on what works and a way to diagnose before you build training.
image: https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792841697883_Sketch-motifs-framing-an-article-title.jpeg
---

[Skip to content](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#main-content)

[![AI Powered Course Designer for Learning Architects](https://cognistry.co/hs-fs/hubfs/cognistry_primary-1.png?width=250&height=100&name=cognistry_primary-1.png "AI Powered Course Designer for Learning Architects")](https://cognistry.co)

- [Home](https://cognistry.co)
- [Platform](https://cognistry.co/platform)

    - [What is Capability Engineering](https://cognistry.co/capability-engineering-system)
    - [Signal](https://cognistry.co/signal)
    - [Forge](https://cognistry.co/forge)
    - [Sim](https://cognistry.co/sim)
    - [Edge](https://cognistry.co/adoption)
- [Solutions](https://cognistry.co/overview)

    - [Customer Success](https://cognistry.co/customer-success-support)
    - [Learning & Development](https://cognistry.co/learning-development-training)
    - [Manager Enablement](https://cognistry.co/manager-enablement)
    - [Operations](https://cognistry.co/operations-teams)
    - [Product](https://cognistry.co/product-delivery)
    - [Sales Enablement](https://cognistry.co/sales-enablement)
    - [Strategy Transformation](https://cognistry.co/strategy-transformation)
    - [Talent Management](https://cognistry.co/talent-performance)
- [About](https://cognistry.co/about)
- [Resources](https://cognistry.co/resources)

    - [Get the Book!](https://cognistry.co/the-ai-lead-lambert)
    - [Recommended](https://cognistry.co/edge)
- [LOGIN](https://app.cognistry.co)

[Insights](https://cognistry.co/edge) / [Develop People](https://cognistry.co/edge/tag/develop-people)

# Defining AI and Human Contribution at Work

![Brian Lambert, PhD](https://app.hubspot.com/settings/avatar/d1661e3b3c7efd9049a4635f72e4426a)

[Brian Lambert, PhD](https://cognistry.co/edge/author/brian-lambert)

 Oct 26, 2026, 3:15:00 PM ·  23 min read

![Defining AI and Human Contribution at Work](https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792841697883_Sketch-motifs-framing-an-article-title.jpeg)

#### In this article

1. Loading...

#### Share this article

[Twitter](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcognistry.co%2Fedge%2Fdefining-ai-and-human-contribution&text=%3Cspan+id%3D%22hs_cos_wrapper_name%22+class%3D%22hs_cos_wrapper+hs_cos_wrapper_meta_field+hs_cos_wrapper_type_text%22+style%3D%22%22+data-hs-cos-general-type%3D%22meta_field%22+data-hs-cos-type%3D%22text%22+%3EDefining+AI+and+Human+Contribution+at+Work%3C%2Fspan%3E) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcognistry.co%2Fedge%2Fdefining-ai-and-human-contribution) [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcognistry.co%2Fedge%2Fdefining-ai-and-human-contribution)

Copy link

#### About the Author

![Brian Lambert, PhD](https://app.hubspot.com/settings/avatar/d1661e3b3c7efd9049a4635f72e4426a)

[Brian Lambert, PhD](https://cognistry.co/edge/author/brian-lambert) brian@digitalcommand.co

[View all posts](https://cognistry.co/edge/author/brian-lambert)

AI contributes speed, scale and pattern handling on repetitive, high-volume, data-heavy subtasks. People contribute judgment, context, accountability and the final call. That split is easy to say and hard to run. Most organizations never write it down for a specific workflow, so it gets settled by habit: whoever is in a hurry accepts the output, and nobody is sure who owns the result.

This article gives you a working definition of each side, shows what research says about when combining them helps and when it does not, and explains why the next step is diagnosis, not another course. Before you build that training, you need to know what capability the work actually requires.

## TL;DR

- AI contribution means output on defined subtasks: drafting, analysis, summarizing, decision support. Human contribution means judgment, context, responsibility and evaluation of what AI produces.
- Combining the two does not automatically improve results. A large 2024 meta-analysis found human-AI teams often did worse than the better of the two alone, especially on decision tasks.
- Write the split down per workflow: goals, constraints, role boundaries, escalation rules and review points.
- Judgment is assessed through observable decisions and documented reasoning, not course completion.
- Before building training, work out whether the gap is about people or about the work environment. Only some gaps call for an enablement play built around learning.

## Table of Contents

- [What AI contributes, and what people contribute](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#what-ai-contributes-and-what-people-contribute)
- [Why “better together” is not automatic](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#why-better-together-is-not-automatic)
- [The decisions that need a human owner](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#the-decisions-that-need-a-human-owner)
- [Drawing the line in your own workflow](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#drawing-the-line-in-your-own-workflow)
- [Before you build that course: diagnose the gap](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#before-you-build-that-course-diagnose-the-gap)
- [Developing and assessing judgment in AI-supported work](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#developing-and-assessing-judgment-in-ai-supported-work)
- [Our perspective](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#our-perspective)
- [Where Cognistry fits](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#where-cognistry-fits)
- [FAQ](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#faq)
- [Sources](https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution#sources)

Cognistry

Build the Capability AI Work Requires

 

Cognistry diagnoses the capability work requires, grounds design in your organization's evidence, and measures outcomes back to the business.

[Explore Cognistry](https://cognistry.co/)

## What AI contributes, and what people contribute

Start with plain definitions, because most disagreement at work comes from fuzzy ones.

**AI contribution** is the part of a task a system can perform reliably and repeatedly. A 2026 [ACM study of knowledge workers](https://dlnext.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3820253.3831396) describes AI as supporting work such as writing, idea generation, analysis and decision-making. An organizational-behavior [multilevel review of AI at work](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/job.2735) adds that AI is particularly useful for repetitive work, specialized tasks, decision support and information processing. [MIT Sloan’s account of human-AI teaming](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-humans-and-ai-work-best-together-and-when-each-better-alone) frames it the same way: AI excels at repetitive, high-volume or data-driven subtasks.

**Human contribution** is everything that requires context, values or ownership. The same ACM study lists judgment, contextual interpretation, responsibility, and the critical evaluation and integration of AI-generated output. [MIT Sloan’s 2025 Workforce Intelligence guide](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2025-09/MIT%20Sloan%20-%20Workforce%20Intelligence-digital.pdf) groups distinctively human capabilities into five areas:

- Empathy and emotional intelligence
- Presence, networking and connectedness
- Opinion, judgment and ethics
- Creativity and imagination
- Hope, vision and leadership

Accenture’s [2026 perspective on co-intelligence](https://www.accenture.com/en/insights/strategy/age-of-co-intelligence) puts the enterprise version in terms of accountability: humans contribute context, values, legitimacy and accountability. It says human-led operating systems should set direction, define guardrails, challenge analysis, make trade-offs and own outcomes.

Notice what the definitions share. The line is not “AI does easy work, people do hard work.” It is about **who owns the outcome** and **who holds the context the output needs to be right**. A model can draft a customer response in seconds. It cannot know that this customer’s contract is under renegotiation, or that the policy it cites was quietly changed last week. That knowledge lives in the organization, and a person has to bring it.

## Why “better together” is not automatic

The popular claim is that humans plus AI beat either alone. The evidence is more careful than that.

A 2024 [systematic review and meta-analysis in Nature Human Behaviour](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1) found that human-AI combinations performed, on average, worse than the better of humans or AI working alone. The losses were especially associated with decision tasks. Gains were greater in content-creation tasks.

[MIT Sloan’s summary](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-humans-and-ai-work-best-together-and-when-each-better-alone) of that work, covering 370 effect sizes from 106 experiments, separates two ideas worth keeping apart:

- **Augmentation:** the human-AI pair beats the human alone.
- **Synergy:** the pair beats both the human alone and the AI alone.

Augmentation is common. Synergy is the real prize, and it is rarer. MIT Sloan’s reading is that organizations should redesign whole workflows and compare human-alone, AI-alone and combined performance, not assume that adding AI improves results.

There is encouraging evidence too. In an [experiment with 196 participants on AI delegation](https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3581641.3584052), assigning each instance to the human or the AI based on comparative capability improved human performance and satisfaction, and the combined team outperformed both human-alone and AI-alone. The lesson: the gain came from deciding who handles what, not from putting both on everything.

For anyone responsible for results, that is the headline. Contribution has to be **allocated**, task by task. Otherwise you get the worst of both: people who rubber-stamp, and AI output nobody really checked.

## The decisions that need a human owner

Some responsibilities stay with people however capable the system gets. Kolbjørnsrud’s [California Management Review guide to designing the intelligent organization](https://cmr.berkeley.edu/assets/documents/promo/kolbjornsrud-2023-designing-the-intelligent-organization-six-principles-for-human-ai-collaboration.pdf) says human judgment remains necessary to:

1. Establish purpose and goals.
2. Allocate work between people and systems.
3. Integrate human and digital inputs.
4. Assess bias risks.
5. Enforce responsible practices.

The same guide notes that people can handle ambiguity and complex judgment calls that AI systems may not. A 2026 California Management Review article on [governing AI through human-AI symbiosis](https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2026/10/governing-ai-through-human-ai-symbiosis/) adds that responsible governance must keep a productive tension between AI-enabled consistency and human divergent judgment, so that people decide which outputs are novel, contextually meaningful and worth pursuing.

### Oversight on paper is not oversight

Naming a human “in the loop” is not enough. Ben Green’s [analysis of policies requiring human oversight](https://www.benzevgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/22-clsr.pdf) cautions that nominal oversight can create false assurance. The evidence he reviews suggests people may be unable to perform the oversight intended, which lets agencies or vendors sidestep accountability for algorithmic harms.

So the question for a leader is not “is there a person in the loop?” It is “can that person actually catch the error, and do they know when to?” That is a capability question. We take it up in our piece on [why decision capability is the foundation of human-AI collaboration](https://cognistry.co/edge/decision-capability-core-ai-human-co-work).

### Three points where people step in

A 2026 [Electronic Markets study of generative AI workflows](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-026-00915-x) found that workers preserve authorship and accountability through three episodes: drafting, refining and reviewing. The authors propose a nine-step protocol that specifies when, how and by whom AI outputs are checked, documented and escalated. You do not need their exact protocol to borrow the idea. For each workflow, name who intervenes at each stage, what they check, and what gets recorded.

![Three workflow checkpoints with documentation and escalation branches](https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792841771129_Three-workflow-checkpoints-with-documentation-and-escalation-branches.jpeg)

## Drawing the line in your own workflow

Here is a practical starting grid. Treat it as a draft to test against your own work, not a universal rule. Research supports the general pattern; your workflows decide the specifics.

| Work element | AI contribution | Human contribution |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Goal and scope | None; it receives them | Sets purpose, priorities, constraints |
| First draft or analysis | Produces volume quickly | Supplies context the system lacks |
| Exceptions and ambiguity | Flags patterns | Makes the judgment call |
| Quality review | Checks against defined rules | Evaluates fit, bias risk, consequences |
| Escalation | Routes by rule | Decides when the rule does not apply |
| Accountability | None | Owns the outcome |

Then add the design questions Carnegie Mellon’s collective-intelligence work raises. A [2026 Tepper account of a PNAS Nexus framework](https://www.cmu.edu/tepper/news/stories/framework-grounded-collective-intelligence-aims-create-effective-collaboration-human-ai-teams) says complementarity depends on task structure, role design, trust calibration, shared mental models, training and continuous evaluation, not merely on model capability. In other words, a better model does not fix an undefined role.

For each workflow, write down:

- The goal and the constraints.
- Which subtasks the AI handles and which the person handles.
- The review points and who performs them.
- The escalation rules: what triggers a stop, and to whom it goes.
- What gets documented, so decisions can be audited later.

Our article on [what AI and human co-work looks like as organizations move from automation to decision systems](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-human-co-work-shift-decision-systems) goes deeper on that shift.

## Before you build that course: diagnose the gap

Here is where most organizations go wrong. Once the split is defined, the reflex is: “People need training on the AI tools.” Someone opens an authoring tool or commissions a course. Completion rates get reported. Performance does not move.

We start earlier. Before anyone builds anything, ask what capability the work actually requires, and whether learning is even the right response. Sometimes it is. Often the gap sits in the environment, not the person.

Two plain categories help:

- **Person gaps.** People lack the knowledge, practice or judgment the work requires. Learning can close these.
- **Environment gaps.** People know what to do, but the work around them blocks it: unclear role boundaries, conflicting incentives, tools that do not fit the task, missing escalation paths, review steps nobody has time for.

The research points the same direction. The organizational-behavior review we cited earlier finds that collaboration improves when workers trust AI, understand its purpose, have relevant AI skills and perceive good task-technology fit. Only some of those are training problems. Task fit is a design problem. Understanding purpose is partly a communication problem. The same review warns that AI can raise skill-development requirements and technology overload, so implementation must address human and organizational demands, not treat the technology as a standalone fix.

RAND’s [guide for U.S. leaders on leading with AI](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3400/PEA3414-1/RAND_PEA3414-1.pdf) lands in a similar place. It recommends a worker-centered approach that involves employees in developing and implementing AI tools, to build trust and make sure tools meet practical needs. It also names siloization as an implementation barrier and recommends connecting AI adoption with workforce development and trust.

### What the diagnosis draws on

We ground the diagnosis in your organization’s own source material, not in a generic skills list:

- **Strategy:** what the business is trying to achieve, and what that demands of the work.
- **Frontline friction:** where people actually get stuck, workaround, or override the system.
- **Quality findings:** the errors, rework and escalations already on record.
- **Subject-matter expertise:** what your best practitioners know that the documentation does not capture.

If that material shows an environment gap, the right enablement play may be a change to a workflow, a role definition or a review step. If it shows a capability gap, the response can be structured learning: courses, practice simulations and decision environments. Building is the downstream result of the diagnosis, never the first move. Our pieces on [AI adoption as a capability problem, not a technology problem](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-adoption-is-not-a-technology-problem) and [four readiness checks before business leaders build](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-adoption-strategy) show how that looks in practice.

## Developing and assessing judgment in AI-supported work

When the diagnosis does call for learning, the target is operational judgment, not recall of tool features. A person who can list a model’s limitations may still accept a flawed output at 4:45 on a Friday.

Building judgment means:

1. **Define the frame.** Goals, constraints, role boundaries, escalation rules and review points, as above.
2. **Practice realistic decisions.** Use scenarios with AI-supported outputs that are sometimes right, sometimes subtly wrong, so people learn when to trust and when to challenge. This is trust calibration, and it needs practice, not a slide.
3. **Evaluate continuously.** Track outcomes, overrides, verification quality and errors over time, as the CMR and Carnegie Mellon work suggest.

Assessing it follows the same logic. Judgment shows up in observable decisions and documented reasoning across drafting, refinement and final review. Course completion tells you someone clicked through. It does not tell you whether the review step catches anything.

That last point matters for HR leaders and business unit owners accountable for results. A completion report is an activity record. What you want is a line of sight from the decisions people make to the quality and business measures you already track. Our article on the [human-in-the-loop capability gap in AI leadership](https://cognistry.co/edge/human-in-the-loop-leadership) and on [AI manager enablement](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-manager-enablement) cover who needs this first. Managers usually do, because they set the review habits everyone else copies.

## Our perspective

We see the same pattern again and again. An organization buys AI tools, then asks learning to “drive adoption.” The request arrives as a course order. Nobody has defined what the work now requires of people, so the course teaches features and the behavior on the floor does not change.

We call the cost of that gap **data drag**: the performance loss between what people were taught and what they do under real conditions. Closing it starts with an honest definition of contribution. What does the AI own? What does the person own? What must the person know, notice and decide to do that well?

Three convictions shape how we work:

- **Diagnosis before design.** Cause analysis comes before any build. If the problem is a broken workflow, training will not fix it, and we would rather say so.
- **Judgment over recall.** People should practice decisions in realistic conditions, with AI in the picture, before the stakes are real.
- **Proof that connects to the business.** Success is measured against operational performance, not seat time.

Human contribution is not a leftover category for what machines cannot yet do. It is the part that makes the work accountable. Defining it clearly, and building the capability to deliver it, is the job.

> *— Brian*

## Where Cognistry fits

If you are defining the human side of AI-supported work and need to know what capability it demands, the [Cognistry Platform](https://cognistry.co/platform) is built for that sequence: diagnose what the work requires, decide whether learning is the right response, then structure the response and measure it back to the business. When the diagnosis points to judgment gaps, [Sim](https://cognistry.co/sim) gives teams decision practice environments to build that judgment before go-live.

## FAQ

### What is the difference between AI contribution and human contribution?

AI contribution is the output a system produces on defined subtasks, such as drafting, analysis, summarizing and decision support. Human contribution is judgment, contextual interpretation, responsibility and the critical evaluation of what the AI produced. The practical test is ownership: the person remains accountable for the outcome.

### Do humans and AI always perform better together?

No. A 2024 meta-analysis in Nature Human Behaviour found that human-AI combinations performed, on average, worse than the better of humans or AI alone, with losses concentrated in decision tasks. Gains were larger in content creation. The result depends on how tasks are allocated and how the workflow is designed.

### Which decisions should always involve a person?

Setting goals and purpose, allocating work, integrating human and digital inputs, assessing bias risk and enforcing responsible practice all need human judgment, according to California Management Review research. Anything with ambiguity, ethical weight or customer or legal consequences needs a named human owner who can actually evaluate the output.

### How do we know whether a performance gap needs training?

Look at your own source material first: strategy, frontline friction, quality findings and expert input. If people know what to do but unclear roles, poor tool fit or missing escalation paths stop them, the gap sits in the environment and training will not close it. If the work demands judgment people have not had the chance to practice, structured learning is the right response.

### How should we assess judgment in AI-supported work?

Assess observable decisions and documented reasoning across drafting, refinement and final review. Track outcomes, overrides, verification quality and errors over time. Course completion shows participation only, not whether the review step works.

## Sources

- [Is My Work Worth Less? How Knowledge Workers Perceive the Contribution of AI (ACM, 2026)](https://dlnext.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3820253.3831396)
- [MIT Sloan Workforce Intelligence guide (2025)](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2025-09/MIT%20Sloan%20-%20Workforce%20Intelligence-digital.pdf)
- [The Age of Co-intelligence (Accenture, 2026)](https://www.accenture.com/en/insights/strategy/age-of-co-intelligence)
- [A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations (Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2023)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/job.2735)
- [When humans and AI work best together, and when each is better alone (MIT Sloan, 2025)](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-humans-and-ai-work-best-together-and-when-each-better-alone)
- [When combinations of humans and AI are useful (Nature Human Behaviour, 2024)](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1)
- [Human-AI Collaboration: The Effect of AI Delegation (ACM, 2023)](https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3581641.3584052)
- [Designing the Intelligent Organization: Six Principles for Human-AI Collaboration (California Management Review)](https://cmr.berkeley.edu/assets/documents/promo/kolbjornsrud-2023-designing-the-intelligent-organization-six-principles-for-human-ai-collaboration.pdf)
- [Governing AI Through Human-AI Symbiosis (California Management Review, 2026)](https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2026/10/governing-ai-through-human-ai-symbiosis/)
- [The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (Ben Green, 2022)](https://www.benzevgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/22-clsr.pdf)
- [Episodic oversight in generative AI workflows (Electronic Markets, 2026)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-026-00915-x)
- [Framework grounded in collective intelligence for human-AI teams (Carnegie Mellon Tepper, 2026)](https://www.cmu.edu/tepper/news/stories/framework-grounded-collective-intelligence-aims-create-effective-collaboration-human-ai-teams)
- [Leading with Artificial Intelligence: Insights for U.S. Leaders (RAND, 2024)](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3400/PEA3414-1/RAND_PEA3414-1.pdf)

## Recommended

- [AI-Enabled: Why Human Creativity Still Matters in the Age of AI](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-authoring-human-creativity)
- [Human in the Loop: The Missing Capability in AI Leadership](https://cognistry.co/edge/human-in-the-loop-leadership)
- [Why decision capability is the foundation of AI human collaboration](https://cognistry.co/edge/decision-capability-core-ai-human-co-work)
- [AI Manager Enablement Is the Missing Link in AI Transformation](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-manager-enablement)

[Develop People](https://cognistry.co/edge/tag/develop-people)

## Continue Reading

[![Redefining Roles for the AI Economy: A Diagnosis-First Guide](https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792386885484_Hand-drawn-AI-role-map-title-card.jpeg)](https://cognistry.co/edge/redefining-roles-for-the-ai-economy)

Develop People

### [Redefining Roles for the AI Economy: A Diagnosis-First Guide](https://cognistry.co/edge/redefining-roles-for-the-ai-economy)

 Redefining roles for the AI economy means working out which tasks AI absorbs, which judgment calls...

Brian Lambert, PhD · 19 min read

[![Your AI Agents Have Job Descriptions. Your People Don't.](https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792742483029_Hand-drawn-role-spec-sketches-framing-the-title.jpeg)](https://cognistry.co/edge/give-ai-job-decsriptions)

Develop People

### [Your AI Agents Have Job Descriptions. Your People Don't.](https://cognistry.co/edge/give-ai-job-decsriptions)

 Giving AI a job description is now standard practice. Give an agent a goal, a toolset, permissions,...

Brian Lambert, PhD · 20 min read

[![](https://cognistry.co/hubfs/AI-Generated%20Media/Images/Office%20Collaboration%20with%20AI%20Tools%20and%20Data%20Displays.png)](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-workforce-readiness)

Prove Value

### [AI Workforce Readiness: Why Buying the Tools Isn't the Same as Being Ready](https://cognistry.co/edge/ai-workforce-readiness)

 Your company probably has AI now.

Cognistry Team · 5 min read

[![Cognistry\_Icon\_White](https://cognistry.co/hs-fs/hubfs/Logos/Cognistry_Icon_White.png?width=150&height=60&name=Cognistry_Icon_White.png "Cognistry_Icon_White")](https://cognistry.co)

- [Cognistry](https://cognistry.co)
- [Resources](https://cognistry.co/resources)
- [Sign In](https://app.cognistry.co)
- [Privacy](https://cognistry.co/privacy)
- [Terms](https://cognistry.co/terms)

© 2026 Cognistry. Capability by Design.

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BreadcrumbList",
  "itemListElement" : [ {
    "@type" : "ListItem",
    "item" : "https://cognistry.co/edge",
    "name" : "Insights",
    "position" : 1
  }, {
    "@type" : "ListItem",
    "item" : "https://cognistry.co/edge/tag/develop-people",
    "name" : "Develop People",
    "position" : 2
  }, {
    "@type" : "ListItem",
    "name" : "Defining AI and Human Contribution at Work",
    "position" : 3
  } ]
}
```

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Brian Lambert, PhD",
    "url" : "https://cognistry.co/edge/author/brian-lambert"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-26T19:15:00.322Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-26T19:15:00.000Z",
  "headline" : "Defining AI and Human Contribution at Work",
  "image" : [ "https://media.babylovegrowth.ai/blog-images/organization-48833/1792841697883_Sketch-motifs-framing-an-article-title.jpeg" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://cognistry.co/edge/defining-ai-and-human-contribution",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://cognistry.co/hubfs/cognistry_primary-1.png"
    },
    "name" : "Cognistry Digital Command"
  }
}
```