01
Human interface
What a person should see and understand.
BIC UTILITY / FIELD CHECK 003
Can an AI system understand the task well enough to act safely?
EXPERIMENT / WEBSITE AFTER THE WEBSITE
For people responsible for websites: turn a page and a user task into a plan for humans, machine-readable facts and agent actions.
Fictional learning example—not findings about a real shop. Nothing is fetched, sent or saved.
01
What a person should see and understand.
02
Facts a system should retrieve without guessing.
03
What an agent needs to act reliably, if action is appropriate.
YOUR IMPLEMENTATION BRIEF / UPDATES AS YOU ANSWER
This plan reflects your answers. “Not checked” means verify first, not a confirmed defect.
Keep a plain-language purpose and next step on the visible page.
Show choices, costs, dates and consequences before a person commits.
Keep the human help and alternative route easy to find.
Give key facts a canonical source, responsible owner and review date.
Expose stable identifiers, units and definitions; do not rely on page layout to convey meaning.
Structure conditions and exceptions alongside each fact, including who or what they apply to.
Define the allowed action, required inputs, validation and expected result before exposing it.
Define identity, permissions and a review-and-confirm boundary before consequential changes.
Verify first: Are failures, retries and receipts defined? Then: Define failure states, duplicate-safe retry rules, escalation and a completion receipt.
Test one change, repeat the same task, and record where a person or agent still gets stuck. This is an experiment, not a claim that websites are disappearing.
WHY THIS EXISTS
A person can bridge missing context, hunt for exceptions and ask for help.
An AI system needs the route, rules, branches, consequences and permission boundaries to be explicit.
This check reveals where a task still depends on human guesswork.
PUBLIC EVIDENCE. EXPLICIT RULES. NO GUESSWORK.
Answer from the information a system could actually reach. Give the site credit only when the route or rule is explicit.
Nothing you answer here is sent anywhere. The check runs entirely in your browser.
WHAT IT CHECKS
Can the official route be found without private context?
Are steps, deadlines and consequences stated rather than implied?
Are plan, role, provider and channel branches visible?
Are authentication, review and explicit confirmation built in?
Can failure, exceptions and wrong-account errors be recovered?
THE BIGGER POINT
This is a directional self-assessment, not a certification. The useful output is the weak condition and the next fix: the rule, branch or safety boundary that needs to become explicit.