Decide quickly
Each diagnostic is scoped to a single question so you can share a concise readout with executives, regulators, or partners.
Diagnostics
This page is for operators, governance teams, and auditors who need decision-ready diagnostics. Pick a diagnostic, arrive with a question, and leave with a decision-ready summary.
Decision-ready outputs
Every diagnostic leaves you with a linkable readout.
Outputs include a stable URL and mechanism language references for follow-up.
Self-serve by default • Studio optional How Studio fits
Copy citation (APA)
Compare tools
Start with the quickest diagnostic that matches your decision.
Use the summary below to pick your best fit before scanning the full menu.
-
Delivery & timing
Each tool notes whether it is self-serve or studio-facilitated, plus the expected time.
-
Best for
One sentence captures the scenario the tool is optimized for.
-
Outputs & prep
Scan the readout list and prep checklist to confirm the lift.
-
Mechanism language
Use the mechanisms catalog to align mitigations after you compare.
Why teams call us
Diagnostics turn fuzzy risk into a concrete next step.
Built for visitors who need a clear answer without a long engagement.
Shareable outputs
Every tool produces a linkable report you can pass to leadership, regulators, or partners.
Link to shared language
Recommendations connect to the mechanism language so product, policy, and ops teams can move together.
Output baseline
What every diagnostic output includes.
Use the shared baseline to align teams before diving into tool specifics.
- Linkable results page and a shareable PDF summary.
- Mechanism language references to keep mitigations consistent.
- Optional facilitation handoff when ambiguity or risk stays high.
Self-serve by default • Studio optional How Studio fits
Anti-weaponization
Diagnostics must verify AW-01 through AW-04
Every diagnostic output should include evidence that anti-weaponization clauses are honored.
- AW-01: Burden metrics include a remediation plan and staffing allocation.
- AW-02: Appeal paths are tested for non-regression and public replacement windows.
- AW-03: Downgrades or eligibility changes always emit receipts and clocks.
- AW-04: High-burden flows include assisted channels or human escalation.
Reference: Anti-weaponization constraints and the evidence requirements.
Quick triage
Pick the fastest diagnostic path in three questions.
Use these prompts to route to the right tool without the demo widget.
Do you need a fast workload snapshot before teams hit burnout thresholds?
Quantify task load and hotspot relief paths.
Open Burden ModelerAre you rehearsing outage coverage or escalation ownership?
Simulate maintenance branches and comms coverage.
Open Maintenance SimulatorAre you modeling capacity decay or saturation risk over time?
Forecast long-term stability and remediation timing.
Open Capacity ForecasterFacilitated, but lightweight
You bring the scenario, we guide the decision.
Sessions are lightweight and focused. We keep the scope tight so you can move work forward without adding overhead.
-
Frame the question
We define what a good answer looks like and what needs to be decided after the diagnostic.
-
Run the tool together
You walk through prompts, inputs, and trade-offs while we map gaps and risks.
-
Leave with a next step
You get a linkable readout, mechanism references, and a next-step path.
Diagnostics are written for visitors: no prior relationship needed, and every tool is CC BY through the Institute.
Diagnostics menu
Pick the tool that matches your situation.
Every diagnostic ships with a linkable result and mechanism references.
Filter by delivery type
Showing all diagnostics.
Diagnostic tool
Burden Modeler
Quantifies task load, cognitive friction, and risk exposure so you can reroute toil before it burns people out.
Self-serve
Estimated time: 10–15 minutes
Best for leaders who need a fast workload snapshot before teams hit a burnout threshold.
-
Use this when
- Run when leaders need to see how burden accumulates across roles or release cycles.
- Pair with support and operations partners to weight inputs and confirm where friction is worst.
-
What you receive
- Burden index score with plain-language findings tied to your scenario.
- Ranked hotspots with mitigation paths and expected relief per action.
- PDF summary built for quick stakeholder forwarding.
-
Prep checklist
- Scenario name and primary workflow.
- Rough task volume or handoff counts.
- Known friction points or escalation paths.
Diagnostic tool
LLM Capacity Benchmark
Lightweight evaluation to check if a model and its surrounding UI respect consent and context limits.
Studio-facilitated
Estimated time: 30–45 minutes
Best for teams validating consent, disclosure, and context limits before an AI pilot.
-
Use this when
- Run before piloting a new model-powered feature with real people.
- Pair with progressive consent prompts to keep expectations clear.
-
What you receive
- Readiness summary that highlights consent journey gaps.
- UI nits and mitigation guidance tied to mechanism language filters.
- Tiered scorecard that clarifies the readiness ceiling.
-
Prep checklist
- Sample prompts or flows to benchmark.
- Current consent or disclosure copy.
- Stakeholder who owns model and UI decisions.
Diagnostic tool
Maintenance Simulator
Tabletop simulation that plays through outages, maintenance windows, and handoffs to stress-test coverage.
Self-serve
Estimated time: 20–30 minutes
Best for operations leaders rehearsing outage response and escalation ownership.
-
Use this when
- Use during planning to negotiate coverage, escalation, and staffing constraints with partners.
- Stress-test appeal paths, safety valves, and service-level guarantees before launch.
-
What you receive
- Scenario runs with clear ownership, mitigation branches, and time-to-halt expectations.
- Communication templates mapped to risk levels, roles, and escalation routes.
- Coverage map that highlights readiness gaps per team.
-
Prep checklist
- Upcoming maintenance or outage scenario.
- Named escalation owner and comms partner.
- Known dependency or rollback risks.
Diagnostic tool
Technical Capacity Forecaster
Charts compound decay against refusal windows to spot saturation risk across a 24-month horizon.
Self-serve
Estimated time: 15–20 minutes
Best for delivery leaders aligning long-term stability plans with capacity constraints.
-
Use this when
- Use when delivery teams need to visualize stability trade-offs with remediation paths.
- Pair with portfolio reviews to align refusal policies with operational bandwidth.
-
What you receive
- Side-by-side baseline and remediated capacity projections.
- PDF export with saturation callouts for stakeholder sharing.
- Scenario table that clarifies timing trade-offs for leadership.
-
Prep checklist
- Current capacity baseline or recent burn rates.
- Known remediation options or refusal windows.
- Stakeholder who needs the output PDF.
Referenced by
Where diagnostics connect to enforcement
Cross-links keep diagnostic outputs aligned with standards, bindings, and evidence packs.
Required by bindings
Verified by evidence packs
Search IDs: AW-01, AW-02, AW-03, AW-04, VAL-01, VAL-02, VAL-03, STD-02.2.1, STD-02.3.1.