Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30Practical Checklist for Responsible AI Integration in Workplace Tasks · Final Review · Score 27/30
+
Five iterations with three distinct activities (peer review, storyboard, seven stratified operational/strategic interviews) and a per-transition changelog table for each step.
+
The V5 Decision Logic (binary "absolute blockers" + 5-point Likert + three-tier triage) gives the tool a concrete managerial output that several other submissions lack.
+
The worked use case produces an explicit numerical breakdown (33/45, 73%, "Partial Automation Recommended"), demonstrating the rubric end-to-end.
+
"Design requirements" added under every V5 item turn the checklist from an evaluation hurdle into a generative blueprint — a strong, well-motivated move.
+
Anonymized interview notes with direct quotes (e.g., "would require double the effort") clearly evidence the stakeholder-to-change links.
−
Section 3.2 (Data Analysis) is written in a vague, quasi-poetic register ("Meaning built slowly, pulled together by repetition rather than assumption") that obscures the actual coding procedure and reads as unprofessional for a methods section.
−
The scoring tiers (e.g., 50–80% = "Medium" → partial automation) and Likert-to-points mapping are asserted without justification or sensitivity discussion.
−
Single sector (industrial/parametric 3D design); generalizability is limited and the paper acknowledges this but still markets cross-sector transferability in the abstract.
−
Stakeholder count is ambiguous: "seven industry professionals" but Table 1 bundles "VP & Commercial Director" as one row, making the operational/strategic split hard to verify.
−
References are dated and generic (mostly 2018–2019 ethics frameworks); no demographic table for the interviewees.