Let's say someone rings your organisation the week after their partner has died. The paperwork is routine. Errors can be corrected. On paper, it's ideal for automation.

But the value of that call isn't only the correct outcome. It's that somebody noticed. Somebody cared. Somebody could answer this person, not just this category of case.

I'm Ray Mead. For the past year I've been working on a question that often gets skipped. Not just what can we automate, or is it safe, but where do people still matter in the value chain, and why?

Sometimes a human should stay in the work because the risk is high. Sometimes because judgement is needed. And sometimes because the human contribution is the value. Three different reasons, and in my experience organisations mostly measure the first.

I'm building Lúwāra to help organisations see that difference, and to test whether it can be assessed fairly. It's AI-positive. More human effort is not the goal. Appropriate AI, and people where they matter, is.

It's early. The framework is a work in progress, and I'm looking to develop it and test it against real work.

So, this is an ask. If you run work where AI is changing who does what, a service, a team, a creative process, I'd like thirty minutes. No pitch. I'll ask where AI and human value are pulling apart for you, and what you'd want from a standard that took that seriously. In return, I'll share what I learn from every one of these conversations.

The link's below. Or just reply here. Thank you.