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 principal-agent model yields a contracting paradox in which increasingly reliable but unpredictably fallible AI makes it more expensive to motivate human vigilance, with the required wage scaling inversely with AI error probability and potentially inducing firms to limit collaboration or prefer a less reliable tool.
Scope: Theoretical principal-agent model of professional human-AI workflows; no empirical population, sample, observation period, or statistical denominator
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 and PDFs were not inspected.
- The result is model-based and the abstract does not report its assumptions, robustness conditions, or empirical validation.
- The page states it was revised on 2026-04-06; only the public abstract manifestation observed on 2026-08-20 was inspected.
Source independence
ssrn-only