Individual
The person can name a task where AI may help, but has not yet made the task, inputs, review, or ownership repeatable.
You can see where work is slow, repetitive, or difficult to reason about, but the work is still mostly manual and protected by personal intuition. Awareness is the starting condition, not a judgment about readiness or value.
The person can name a task where AI may help, but has not yet made the task, inputs, review, or ownership repeatable.
The team sees a shared opportunity, while process, handoffs, and responsibility remain mostly informal.
Leadership recognizes the strategic need, but has not yet built a coherent operating response or risk boundary.
The same person, team, or organization can be at different maturity levels in different workflows. Use evidence from live work.
A recurring task or gap can be named, but the desired outcome and constraints are still broad.
People can identify important sources or context that an AI system would need, even if they do not yet use them consistently.
Review relies on intuition or a final read-through; the difference between fluent output and reliable output is not yet explicit.
AI use is isolated or hypothetical rather than part of a defined sequence of work.
Accountability is implicit. The human owner, disclosure, and escalation path are not yet clear.
There is little record of attempts, corrections, near misses, or what should change next time.
Starting with a collection of tools or prompts before defining the work. Curiosity is useful, but it is not evidence of capability.
You have one repeatable task, basic source and constraint awareness, a human review step, a named owner, and notes about what worked or failed. Continue to Exploring, or take the assessment to establish a broader profile.
Once the work is bounded, use the AAOS stages to move from diagnosis into a controlled workflow.