A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30A Co-Designed Checklist for Well-Calibrated Trust in Human-AI Collaboration · Final Review · Score 29/30
+
Clean derivation of four checklist dimensions from the scoping review, with a focus-area table that makes the structure easy to follow.
+
Reasonably diverse 11-person sample (med students, dentists, biomedical engineers, hygienists, and daily-AI professionals) with a stated rationale for cross-background recruitment.
+
Thematic analysis quantified (Table 2 counts how many of 11 raised each theme) and all stakeholder answers reproduced in the appendix, supporting transparency.
+
The dentistry worked use case is concrete (78%-confidence X-ray, complex medical history) and maps to operational decision tables (high-risk-condition counts → suggested action).
+
Responsive to feedback: the "fear perspective" criticism is explicitly addressed by rebalancing toward benefits, and EU AI Act / privacy items are added in V2.
−
Only one stakeholder round and two versions (V1 → V2); the deliverable's iterative co-design intent is only minimally satisfied, and there is no distinct expert-validation phase (the dentist is simply one of the 11).
−
The "checklist" is largely a 40-item interview questionnaire; a true decision-support checklist appears only at the very end (Appendix E), so the instrument's identity is conflated throughout.
−
Methodology uses future/planning tense in places ("feedback will be collected", "Planned Checklist Refinement"), suggesting the report was submitted in a partially draft state.
−
Traceability is thin: changes are summarized at the table level (Table 6) but not mapped item-by-item to specific feedback.
−
The decision thresholds (0–1 / 2–3 / 4+ high-risk conditions → actions) are reasonable but entirely unjustified, and the use case maps to question numbers (Q7, Q8…) rather than to discrete checklist items, making it hard to follow as a checklist application.