Imagine you're a taxi driver and the dispatcher starts routing you only to airport fares — long rides, big tips. Sounds great. But now every time a passenger says "just downtown," you're annoyed. Before the dispatcher's filter, downtown was fine. Now it's below your new mental threshold. You cut the ride short, suggest they grab another cab. That's the mechanism this paper documents, except with insurance sales calls instead of taxi rides. The committed claim: when AI voice agents handle low-intent leads in parallel with human workers, the resulting enrichment of human-facing opportunities raises workers' reservation value — their internal threshold for "worth my effort" — causing them to abandon better-than-average leads that they would have previously worked. The net effect on customer acquisition is negative. This is not a technology-failure story. The AI works fine. The humans respond rationally to changed incentives, and the system loses. The empirical setting is a Chinese online health-insurance brokerage that deployed an AI voice agent to pre-screen outbound leads. Using over 500,000 customer outreach records and a regression-discontinuity-in-time design, the authors trace behavior changes across the workday. The enrichment effect is real and large: the probability that a call is a high-intent lead rises by ~23 percentage points on the first three calls of the day. But customer acquisition by humans drops ~5 percentage points precisely where enrichment is greatest. Workers reallocate their earliest leads ~8 percentage points more often and shorten those calls by ~13%. The behavioral penalty outweighs the lead-quality gain. The theoretical scaffold is sequential search theory from labor economics — the same framework that explains why unemployed workers with generous benefits take longer to accept job offers. Each call is a "search" opportunity; when the distribution of opportunities improves, the worker's optimal stopping rule shifts upward. They become pickier. The paper calibrates a decomposition showing the modest mechanical gain from better lead ordering is swallowed by the larger negative behavioral shift. This is elegant because it's falsifiable: the behavioral effect should concentrate where enrichment is strongest (early in the day) and fade where it's weakest (later). The data confirm exactly this pattern. The identification strategy is the paper's strongest card. Regression discontinuity in time exploits the sharp rollout date, and the within-day variation provides a second source of identification — the enrichment fading across the workday acts as a built-in dose-response test. The half-million-record sample is large. The main limitation is single-firm, single-industry scope. Insurance brokerage outbound calling is a specific labor process; whether the mechanism generalizes to, say, software support or radiology triage is an open question the authors acknowledge but cannot answer. The broader implication is operationally important: "opportunity distribution" — the quality and sequencing of tasks facing a worker — is a state variable that managers must track alongside workload and congestion. Most AI deployment playbooks assume that giving humans better inputs produces better outputs. This paper shows the opposite can happen when workers have agency over effort allocation. The fix isn't obvious: you could obscure lead quality from workers (ethically fraught), randomize lead ordering (wastes the AI's sorting), or redesign incentives to penalize early abandonment (risks other distortions). The paper names the problem clearly but wisely doesn't oversell a solution. For anyone designing human-AI workflows in high-volume service operations, this is a paper worth reading carefully. It identifies a failure mode that is invisible in pilot tests (where novelty suppresses the behavioral response) and emerges only at steady-state deployment. The mechanism is general even if the evidence is from one firm. If you're routing tasks between AI and humans, the question isn't just "are the humans getting better tasks?" — it's "how do humans recalibrate their effort when they know the tasks are better?"
