Whose readiness counts? Disagreement within and between sectors in perceived AI and robotics preparedness

Peng Wang

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.23406

Whose readiness counts? Disagreement within and between sectors in perceived AI and robotics preparedness

Peng Wang

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI and Industry 4.0 readiness assessments often summarise preparedness using a single score for an organisation, application domain or sector. Those summaries can conceal disagreement about the same technology and variation among applications grouped under one sector label. We test how much information is lost through this aggregation using a card-based survey in which 982 respondents provided 15,200 readiness evaluations across 17 named AI and robotics challenges. Readiness is perceived community preparedness and available resources, not personal willingness or audited organisational capability. Respondents frequently disagreed about identical challenges, with card-level readiness standard deviations of $1.03$-$1.26$ on a five-point scale. A crossed decomposition attributes 32.7% of observed variation to stable respondent differences, 7.3% to differences among challenges, and 60.0% to response-level variation that also contains measurement error. Differences among challenge-family means account for only about 2% of variation, with substantially more variation among people, applications and person-family judgements. Manufacturing has the highest mean readiness, yet shop-floor robotics, process-optimisation AI and general decision-support applications are judged differently. Computer-science and AI/ML respondents report higher readiness than non-technical respondents across challenge families, whereas engineering respondents do not report higher Manufacturing readiness. Sector rankings are therefore best used as portfolio summaries rather than evidence that an industry is uniformly ready or behind. Readiness reporting should retain application-level disagreement, disclose whose judgements form the average, and consider ethics, cyber security, literacy and capability needs without collapsing them into a single score.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Peng Wang. 2026-08-24. Whose readiness counts? Disagreement within and between sectors in perceived AI and robotics preparedness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23406

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

An Investigation Into Secondary School Students' Debugging Behaviour in Python

Background and context: Debugging is a significant and often frustrating challenge for beginner programmers. Understanding students' debugging behaviours and strategies can help to identify common difficulties and inform approaches for alleviating these. Currently, there are limited studies of school students' debugging behaviour in a text-based programming language, a medium through which millions are learning to program. Objectives: In this paper, we investigate the debugging behaviour of 12-14-year-old students learning Python through a lesson-long classroom study. Method: We collected program snapshots from 73 students' attempts at a set of Python debugging exercises in an online code editor. Through qualitative content analysis of these snapshots, we developed a granular categorisation of the changes students made when debugging. Findings: A range of debugging behaviours were exhibited by students, many of which were ineffective. Students added errors through small-scale changes, reverted corrective changes, and repeatedly ran identical programs in quick succession. From the results, we identify four barriers to successful and reliable debugging for students learning a text-based programming language: fragile knowledge, a lack of systematicity and reflection, the syntax barrier, and dynamics of emotions and attitudes. Implications: This paper highlights some of the difficulties that secondary school students have when debugging in Python and the challenges of analysing program snapshots through manual inspection. We recommend that school teachers explicitly teach a systematic approach to debugging and discourage the use of ineffective debugging behaviours, and that programming environments should contain features that facilitate successful debugging.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Printed but not benchmarkable: most building-decarbonisation disclosure cannot be matched to the pathways that stranding regulation assumes

Cities are beginning to enforce carbon limits on existing buildings. Science-based decarbonisation pathways set those limits one asset type and one jurisdiction at a time. Owners, however, report for the whole firm. We measure what that mismatch costs on two sets of public corporate reports: a census of 502 reports from the 119 listed built-environment firms with a collected report inside a 2,246-firm panel (2003-2023), and 519 real-estate reports from 101 firms (2007-2024). BeDA, a multimodal language-model tool whose reliability we test first, read them. Running the pathway frameworks' own entry tests over published disclosure: 16.5% of census reports (43.7% of real-estate reports) print an operational carbon intensity per square metre; 6.6% (25.0%) can be matched to a pathway for their property type in a covered jurisdiction; and only 5.0% (16.4%) disclose the floor area they divided by. Of the failures at the pathway test, 82-84% follow from reports lumping the portfolio together and 16-18% from a missing curve in the pathway library. The obstacle is the reporting unit, not missing data. The rate is roughly twice as high for European as for US listings (65-71% versus 35% in listed real estate). We also show that a US portfolio's carbon verdict cannot be worked out from disclosure at all. Within one climate zone, the pathway's carbon limit varies by up to 2.79-fold with the electricity subregion, which no report names; its energy limit does not move. Extraction is checked against the source PDFs (97.3% of extracted intensities appear verbatim) and repeats on a second extractor (kappa = 0.97). Recall of the non-disclosing class was 95.1% in a blinded hand audit of 122 reports. The fix follows from the measurement: split intensity by asset type and jurisdiction, and report floor area.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Incipit: Axiom-Grounded Scaffolding for Human-AI Literary Creation

Large language models can produce fluent prose from short prompts, but a direct interaction gives writers little access to the assumptions that shape a long narrative. We present Incipit, an implemented research prototype that inserts an explicit planning layer between writer intent and generated prose. The layer is grounded in literary axioms, which are curated and reusable propositions about human experience and narrative craft. The prototype connects a knowledge base of 1455 axioms and 472 typed relationships to a five round direction dialogue, a retrieval and selection pipeline, and a three level blueprint covering creative premises, story beats, character arcs, and chapter outlines. Writers can inspect and edit the resulting structures before using them as context for scene generation. Additional modules support real event abstraction and five dimensional diagnostic feedback. We describe the design rationale, data flow, implementation boundaries, and a worked design example. Because no controlled user study or independently rated output study has yet been completed, we do not claim that the system improves literary quality. Instead, we outline a future preregistered comparison designed to distinguish the contribution of axiom grounding from that of hierarchical planning. The paper contributes a concrete architecture for making literary knowledge an inspectable coordination object in human AI writing.

cs.CY↗