AI accepts 80% of requests. Can three people handle the rest?
Routine automation still leaves exceptions and audit work.
The question
Rill Works receives 100 requests per hour. Eighty are eligible for AI. Twenty go directly to a person. Ten percent of AI-eligible requests escalate. A human case takes six minutes including handoff. Ten non-escalated AI cases are audited for one minute each. The fictional team caps planned utilization at 80%.
| Amount | |
|---|---|
| Direct cases | 20/hour |
| AI-eligible requests | 80/hour |
| Escalation | 10% |
| Case handling | 6 minutes |
| Audit work | 10 minutes/hour |
This is an average workload calculation, not a waiting-time forecast or a firm’s staffing policy.
“Calculate human workload. Choose a staff count under the stated 80% target.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Retain the escalations
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Count only the 20 direct cases.
Tempting, but it misses something. Eight eligible requests still escalate to a person.
Add escalations to direct cases.
The strong move. Eligible does not mean resolved without a person.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Eighty times 10% gives eight escalations. Human cases total 28 per hour.”
Why it works: Eligible does not mean resolved without a person.
Step 2: Include handoff and audit work
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Account for both case and audit minutes.
The strong move. The six-minute time includes the handoff; audits are separate.
Drop the audit load.
Tempting, but it misses something. Ten one-minute audits add ten minutes of human work.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Human load is 28 times 6 plus 10: 178 minutes per hour.”
Why it works: The six-minute time includes the handoff; audits are separate.
Step 3: Apply the stated target
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Choose three because 178 is below 180.
Tempting, but it misses something. Three people exceed the stated 80% planning limit.
Choose four at the 80% target.
The strong move. Average spare time must meet the case’s planning rule.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Three people provide 180 minutes and would run at 98.89%. Four provide 240 minutes and run at 74.17%.”
Why it works: Average spare time must meet the case’s planning rule.
Step 4: Change the escalation rate
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recalculate staffing when exceptions rise.
The strong move. Automation quality changes human capacity needs.
Keep four regardless of escalation.
Tempting, but it misses something. Sixteen escalations add 48 more minutes than eight escalations.
See how a strong candidate says it
“At 20% escalation, load rises to 226 minutes per hour. Five people are needed at 80%.”
Why it works: Automation quality changes human capacity needs.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Plan four staff under this case’s 80% rule.
- Because
- Three nearly exhaust all available minutes before arrival variability is considered.
- What would change it
- At 20% escalation, the same rule needs five staff.
Escalations double to 20%. Can four staff still meet the planning rule?
Common traps
- Treating AI eligibility as AI resolution.
- Claiming average load proves a waiting target.
Check your answer
- I kept direct and escalated cases.
- I included audit and handoff time.
- I applied the given utilization rule.
- I stated the limits of average load.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026