InTune is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. This page keeps the open questions, the experiments and the findings in one place — including the ones that are still unanswered.
Do people actually value this type of human support?
Can appropriately trained non-licensed Supporters provide useful support within clearly defined boundaries?
Does AI actually make the Supporter better?
Can AI provide assistance without distracting from the human conversation?
Can the system identify situations that require escalation?
Can the model eventually operate at a sustainable cost?
The concept has been discussed with psychology professionals and researchers, who were asked to challenge it rather than approve it. The feedback was sufficiently positive to continue developing and testing the concept — see Research.
The pilot should test the system in a controlled environment, with defined measurements in four areas:
Did the AI help? Was it distracting? Did it improve confidence? Did it save cognitive effort?
Did conversations improve? Did Supporters ask better questions? Did they miss fewer important details?
Accuracy, relevance, timing, hallucinations, false positives, false negatives.
Risk identification, escalation quality, boundary violations.
Question · hypothesis · method · result · conclusion · decision. The format matters more than any single experiment: it makes it possible to see later why something changed.
Hypothesis: frequent interruptions may increase cognitive load and interfere with natural conversation.
Method: compare proactive suggestions against on-demand AI assistance.
Result: pending.
Rather than pretending everything has been settled, the uncertainty is kept visible.