Skip to main content
Sample team report · anonymized

Sample Team Composition Report

Six of twenty-four employees assessed. This is what your employer console produces once at least three people finish.

Deploy to my team →
Awareness
69
Initiative
63
Rigor
66
Execution
65

Composition

Employee A · Site Supervisor
Foreman-Pilot
A 81 · I 78 · R 58 · E 69
Employee B · Project Manager
Scheduler-Architect
A 74 · I 71 · R 66 · E 72
Employee C · Estimator
Estimator-Analyst
A 63 · I 52 · R 84 · E 55
Employee D · Foreman
PM-Operator
A 58 · I 61 · R 60 · E 79
Employee E · Safety Lead
Field-Steward
A 52 · I 44 · R 81 · E 48
Employee F · Carpenter
Trade-Pragmatist
A 88 · I 69 · R 47 · E 66

Coverage gaps

No Client Translator

Nobody can explain AI-assisted work to clients, patients, or executives. The first hard external question will stall the whole programme.

No Process Builder

Wins will stay personal. Nothing gets templated, so every improvement dies when the person who made it moves on.

No Site Verifier

Nobody will catch AI errors. This is the single highest-risk gap on this list — it is a hiring or training gap, not a stylistic preference.

Chemistry pairs

Scheduler Architect + Estimator Analyst

The AIRE Architect can move a whole group; the Analyst makes sure the thing being scaled actually works. Pair them before any team-wide rollout.

Trade Pragmatist + Scheduler Architect

The AIRE Pragmatist has the fluency and no standing; the Architect has the standing and can give the fluency a legitimate path.

Friction pairs

Trade Pragmatist ↔ Field Steward

Fluency against ground truth. The AIRE Pragmatist moves faster than the record allows; the Steward reads that as carelessness. Give them a shared, written standard.

PM Operator ↔ Estimator Analyst

Throughput against precision. The AIRE Operator will ship before the Analyst is comfortable. Agree the verification budget in hours up front.

Manager talking points

  • I assessed all of us, myself included — this is about what each of us is best at with AI, not a performance review.
  • Nobody here is 'behind'. The four dimensions measure different working styles; a low score in one is a specific, fixable habit, not a verdict.
  • Here is our team shape and the gap it leaves — that gap is mine to fill, either by training or by hiring.
  • Nothing AI-produced goes out externally without a named person checking it. Here is who that is for each type of work.
  • Everyone gets one measurable thing to try in the next 30 days, and we review results — not effort — at the end of it.

4-week lunch-and-learn curriculum

Week 1 — What these tools actually are (and are not)
  • 10 min: live demo — draft one request for information (RFI) and one daily report from voice notes, on screen, unedited then edited.
  • 10 min: the three failure modes on a jobsite — fabricated spec citations, stale drawing revisions, confident wrong quantities.
  • 10 min: each person names one task in their week that takes over an hour and is mostly typing.
Week 2 — Documentation and field reporting
  • 10 min: hands-on — everyone dictates a daily report on their own phone and cleans it up.
  • 10 min: what must never be AI-generated without review — anything going to the owner, architect, or inspector.
  • 10 min: set the standard format the whole team will use for the next two weeks.
Week 3 — Drawings, quantities, and verification
  • 10 min: revision compare demo on a live job's last two sets.
  • 10 min: AI takeoff vs. manual takeoff on the same area — compare the numbers in the room.
  • 10 min: agree the tolerance and the check before anything is used on a live bid.
Week 4 — Making it stick
  • 10 min: each person reports their measured result — minutes saved, errors found.
  • 10 min: decide which two practices become standard on every job.
  • 10 min: name owners and the review date; write it into the project procedure.