Frequently Asked Questions

These are proprietary operational heuristics designed by the Cognitive Systems Lab. The Cognitive Friction Index (CFI) measures the mental cost generated by UI/UX and task-switching. The Task Entropy Score (TES) quantifies variability and unpredictability in procedures. The Focus Recovery Window (FRW) estimates the biological time needed to reset attention after high-load work.

We built them because traditional productivity metrics track output (how many tickets were closed, how many lines of code were written) without tracking the cognitive cost of that output. Organizations often optimize workflows to the point of breaking human operators. These models exist to visualize and quantify the invisible cognitive tax of modern work.

The tools use a deterministic, 5-layer Diagnostic Rule Architecture. Your inputs pass through a pure metric engine that applies fixed mathematical coefficients (e.g., heavily weighting task complexity over raw duration). The results then pass through a Pattern Detection layer and a Reality Falsification filter to suppress weak signals and prevent over-diagnosis.

They are probabilistic estimations. Human cognition varies widely based on sleep, diet, stress, and neurodiversity. Our tools provide a baseline heuristic—what is statistically likely to occur given the procedural load. This is why every diagnosis includes a "Confidence Level" and a "Signal Strength" rating, explicitly acknowledging uncertainty.

The structural logic of our equations is anchored in established psychological and human-factors research, notably John Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), task-switching cost research by Rubinstein et al., and NASA's human performance data on vigilance fatigue. We bridge these academic theories into actionable mathematical heuristics.

The models lose validity in extremely highly-automated environments where the human is purely an observer, or in highly creative, unstructured tasks (like artistic composition) where "friction" is actually part of the generative process. They are designed for structured, operational workflows (e.g., engineering, legal review, medical triage).

Absolutely not. These tools assess the environment and the workflow, not the individual. They evaluate operational procedure design. They cannot and do not diagnose burnout, ADHD, cognitive decline, or any medical/psychological condition.

We built a Reality Falsification layer specifically to prevent the system from inventing a problem when the data is weak. If the combination of inputs does not strongly align with a known failure mode, the system suppresses the diagnosis rather than giving you false certainty.

NASA-TLX is a subjective, post-task assessment (it asks the operator how they felt after the fact). Our estimators (CFI, TES) are deterministic, predictive heuristics designed to evaluate the procedure before or during execution, focusing on the structural complexity of the task itself rather than subjective self-reporting.

Execution time alone is a misleading metric. A worker might complete a task quickly but exhaust 90% of their working memory due to high entropy, leaving them depleted for the rest of the day. Time measures metabolic attrition, but it completely ignores structural cognitive load.

Do not use the score to evaluate the employee; use the score to evaluate the process. If the tool diagnoses "Knowledge Gap Friction," rewrite your documentation. If it diagnoses "Manual Grinding," automate the repetitive steps. Treat the results as an audit of your operational environment.

An Accumulation Warning suggests that while an operator might survive the workflow once, repeating it daily will lead to compounding fatigue or procedural drift. It is an indicator that structural intervention (e.g., task rotation, automation, environmental isolation) is required immediately to prevent long-term failure.

No. While deeply grounded in peer-reviewed science (Cognitive Load Theory), the specific equations and frameworks (CFI, TES) are proprietary operational heuristics developed by the Cognitive Systems Lab. They are designed for pragmatic industry application, not clinical accuracy.

Our recommendations focus exclusively on structural, operational changes (e.g., "flatten decision trees," "reduce concurrent notifications"). They are safe, highly practical workflow adjustments that carry zero risk of psychological or medical harm. The goal is to provide a sensible direction for organizational improvement, guided by the Contributing Factors matrix.