IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/e9qw5_v1.html

Philosophy as Cognitive Assay: Measuring the Delegation Legitimacy Boundary in AI-Assisted Knowledge Work

Author

Listed:
  • Tomita, Kengo

    (Shimizu Corporation)

Abstract

This article operationalizes the concept of a delegation legitimacy boundary — the structural line along which human judgment can and cannot be legitimately delegated to artificial intelligence — and proposes a minimal scoring protocol for locating it within any knowledge-work task. Building on the Mekiki framework (Tomita 2026), which distinguished specification — the task-defining substrate of domain expertise — from externalization cost — the technical barrier that AI selectively removes — the present article derives a further decomposition within specification itself. Drawing on case-study evidence in which recorded specification judgments contain separable factual components (Sein-type: what the data structure affords, how users will perceive a display) and value-laden components (Sollen-type: what information ought to be excluded, which priority ranking is appropriate), the article grounds this distinction in Hume’s is–ought separation and Kant’s Sein/Sollen architecture, and redeploys it as the axis of a cognitive assay — a measurement system in which philosophical categories serve not as normative prescriptions but as diagnostic coordinates. The resulting five-step scoring protocol assigns Sein-type components to AI evaluation and Sollen-type components to domain-expert evaluation; this asymmetry is not a design choice but a structural consequence of the boundary itself, which holds as long as legitimacy over value judgments remains institutionally human-attributed. Most individual judgments are hybrid, carrying both components in varying ratios; the protocol therefore yields ratio profiles rather than binary classifications. As a first application, the article re-describes the four processes of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Socialization–Externalization–Combination–Internalization (SECI) model through the assay, deriving as an analytic consequence the finding that AI acceleration of Externalization and Combination shifts the effective rate-limiting stage to Socialization and Internalization — both human-limited cognitive and social processes that cannot be accelerated by AI investment alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomita, Kengo, 2026. "Philosophy as Cognitive Assay: Measuring the Delegation Legitimacy Boundary in AI-Assisted Knowledge Work," SocArXiv e9qw5_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:e9qw5_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/e9qw5_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a063c1c9a874986c9783355/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/e9qw5_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:e9qw5_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.