The Kaivant-I. What it measures, how it works, and what it honestly cannot yet claim.
A transparent account of the assessment design, the two axes, what your results include, and where the science currently stands. We think clarity about how a tool works is part of what makes it worth using.
The Kaivant-I measures two dimensions of how you work with AI. The first is how effectively AI is integrated into your work: whether you have a real workflow, whether it is helping you make decisions faster, whether the leverage is compounding over time. The second is what is happening to your capability underneath: whether your judgment is staying sharp, whether you can still perform well without the tools, whether the skills that make your work genuinely valuable are developing or quietly contracting.
Most people who use AI regularly have a reasonable feel for the first dimension. Very few have thought carefully about the second. And yet the second is the one that determines whether the first is sustainable.
Personal Leverage Architecture
How well AI is actually integrated into how you work. Not just whether you use it, but whether you have designed workflows around it, whether it is making your decisions faster, whether your output has genuinely improved because of it, and whether that leverage is growing or plateauing.
Human Capital Depth
What your capability is becoming. Whether you can hold and defend your own reasoning. Whether your cognitive range is expanding. Whether you can operate at a solid level when AI tools are unavailable. Whether people seek you out specifically for how you think, not just what you produce.
Personal Learning Architecture
The bridge between the two axes. Whether your use of AI is structured in a way that builds judgment over time, or whether it is absorbing the work that would have developed it. A person with strong AI leverage and weak learning architecture is getting short-term gains at the cost of long-term capability. PLA-B is the dimension that detects this pattern directly.
The Kaivant-I score is anchored to the lower of your two axes. High AI leverage cannot offset declining human capability, and high capability cannot compensate for poor AI integration. Both have to be genuinely present for the composite to be strong. This is not a design choice that disadvantages anyone. It reflects the structural reality that a strong position in the AI era requires both.
The Kaivant-I uses 15 questions across four sections. Most of them describe a specific professional situation and ask you to choose the response that most accurately reflects what you would actually do, or what would most likely happen. They do not ask you to rate how much effort you put into continuous learning, or how committed you are to developing your skills. Those kinds of questions produce answers people think they should give rather than answers that reflect how they actually work.
Two of the questions ask something different again: not what you would do, but what you have actually noticed. Has there been a skill or type of thinking that you used to do yourself and now rely on AI to handle? Do people regularly seek you out for your judgment specifically, not just for what you can produce? These are harder to answer optimistically if the honest answer points in a different direction.
The final three questions are about trajectory: not where you are, but where this is going if your current patterns continue. The trajectory answers do not change your numeric score. They shape the read you receive at the end, because where you are today and where you are heading are two different things worth knowing about separately.
A score across two axes, and a read that explains what it means.
The assessment takes 8 to 12 minutes. No account is required. Your results appear immediately and are private to you.
Where you stand on both dimensions
Your Personal Leverage Architecture score and your Human Capital Depth score, presented separately. You can see which axis is stronger and where the gap lies. The composite score reflects the non-compensatory relationship between them.
What the pattern means for you specifically
A structured narrative calibrated to your adoption stage, your dimension scores, and what your trajectory answers indicate. Not a generic output. The read identifies the specific pattern in your results and what it suggests about the direction your current working habits are taking you.
Your results belong to you
Your scores are never shared with organisations without your explicit consent. Your capability resilience score in particular is private by architectural design: if organisations could see it, people would perform AI-free work for measurement purposes rather than genuine practice, which would undermine the thing the assessment is trying to measure.
Context matters to how we read your score
The same score means something different at four months of serious AI use than at four years. The first question asks where you are in that journey, and the read is calibrated accordingly. A person four months in who scores 55 is in a very different position from someone four years in with the same number.
The Kaivant-I is designed as a self-diagnostic tool for individuals and a planning instrument for facilitated sessions. It is not designed for any of the following purposes, and using it for them would misapply the instrument.
Employment or performance evaluation
The Kaivant-I measures your current relationship with AI and your capability trajectory. It does not measure output quality or suitability for a role. Using it as a hiring screen or a performance rating would introduce measurement error the instrument was not built to handle.
Regulatory or governance compliance
No score on the Kaivant-I demonstrates compliance with any regulatory standard, AI governance framework, or organisational policy. The instrument is not designed for that purpose and the validation programme has not been oriented toward it.
Ranking individuals within a team
Individual results are private to the individual by design. KAIVANT does not expose scores to organisations without explicit consent. Ranking people by their Kaivant-I scores would distort the instrument's incentives in ways that would make the measurement less accurate, not more.
See what the assessment reveals about your pattern.
Free, 12 minutes, no account required. Your results are immediate and private.
Questions about the assessment
Most people complete it in 8 to 12 minutes. There is no time limit, and the questions reward genuine reflection rather than quick answers.
Less easily than a standard survey. Because the questions describe specific situations rather than asking how much effort you apply to something, the socially desirable answer is not always obvious. Two of the questions ask what you have actually noticed in your own practice, not what you aspire to do. The instrument is designed for genuine individual diagnostic use, where misrepresentation works against your own interest.
A score across two axes, and an AI-generated read: a structured narrative that explains what the score pattern means for you specifically, calibrated to how long you have been using AI professionally. The read is not generic. It reflects the specific combination of your dimension scores and the direction of travel your answers indicate.
Yes. Your results are private to you by default. Your capability resilience score in particular is never shared with organisations. This is not just a policy: it is an architectural decision. If that score were accessible to employers, people would have an incentive to perform AI-free work for measurement purposes rather than genuine practice, which would undermine the thing the instrument is trying to measure.
The theoretical foundation, measurement framework, and validation programme are published on kaivant.org. The Foundation Paper sets out the full conceptual architecture behind the two-axis model, the augmentation-substitution distinction, and the evidence base that underpins the instrument design.