We want experts to direct far more quality-controlled work, not spend every hour repeating it.
Reusable assets, parallel execution and faster feedback can increase test coverage. The multiplier must be measured after review, rework and the cost of the whole team are included.
Count useful work. Include its real cost.
Our proposed primary measure is quality-accepted test units per expert hour. A completed test requires agreed variables, traceable assets, review, publication and data from a mature reporting window.
- Accepted work, not generated files
- Track approved output and successful publication separately. Exclude previews, duplicates and failed jobs.
- Human effort and quality
- Include every reviewer’s time, revisions, brand errors and exception handling—not just the final approval click.
- Coverage and cycle time
- Measure comparable variables, active accounts and time from signal to publication. Separate active work from external waiting.
- Matched baseline and total cost
- Compare work of similar difficulty. Include all human effort, compute, providers and content rights; report the observed result even if it is below the ambition.
We have not established a matched baseline proving 100× leverage. Any future result must state its period, task scope, quality standard and limitations. This is not a promise of 100× speed, revenue or ROI.