From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
A preregistered field experiment randomized 776 Procter & Gamble professionals across AI/no-AI and individual/pair arrangements on product-innovation challenges; this posting reports that individuals with AI performed comparably to human teams without AI, produced solutions less differentiated by R&D versus commercial background, and reported more positive emotions.
Scope: Universe and denominator: 776 professionals at one consumer-goods company overall; unit: professional or pair and product-development output; period: not displayed; condition and team counts are not displayed.
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; full text was not inspected.
- Condition allocation, effect sizes, task count, study period, statistical details, and emotion measures are not displayed; comparable performance may not mean a formal equivalence test, and the teammate interpretation is inferential.
- This 56-page HBS/Wharton/ESSEC posting says there are two versions. SSRN 5207588 presents the same title and abstract as a distinct 54-page NBER posting with different dates, series, access presentation, and Hila Lifshitz name form; the lane preserves rather than resolves that posting/version conflict.
Source independence
ssrn-only