Imagine you're sorting a warehouse of 18,796 differently shaped packages into bins labeled 'a robot could carry this alone,' 'a robot needs a human to spot it,' and 'only a human can carry this.' Now imagine doing that sorting not by gut feel but by having two independent sorters use the same frozen checklist — and then checking whether a third human sorter, working blind, agrees. That's the core mechanism of this paper: systematic task-level triage of the global workforce, with the checklist locked before anyone saw the results. The committed claim: the Agent Delegability Index (ADI) is the first preregistered, globally weighted measure of how much of world employment could be delegated to AI agents — not just 'exposed to AI' in the vague sense, but parsed into concrete delegation levels (augmentation, partial, full) with named barriers (physical manipulation, judgment, regulation). The headline number — 35.2% of global task-time is at least partly delegable, only 2.5% fully — is less surprising than the gradient beneath it: delegability rises from 22.5% in low-income countries to 48.7% in high-income ones, at a slope of 7.23 percentage points per log-GDP. The driver is compositional: poorer countries employ most people in jobs blocked by physical barriers that current AI agents simply cannot cross. The ladder position is strong and honestly reported. ADI correlates at r = 0.93 with the Eloundou et al. GPT-exposure scores and r = 0.89 with Felten et al., both above the preregistered threshold of 0.80. The authors are explicit that ADI is not trying to produce a new US occupation ranking — it extends the exposure paradigm by adding delegation granularity and global coverage via ISCO-08 crosswalks and ILOSTAT employment weights across 146 countries. This is an infrastructure contribution, not a leaderboard claim. Architecturally, the method belongs to the 'LLM-as-rater' family that has become standard since Eloundou et al. (2023). Two language models independently score each of 18,796 ONET task statements on a frozen rubric; disagreements are resolved by consensus or a third agentic panel with web search. Inter-model agreement hits κ = 0.77; a blind human rating of 300 tasks agrees with model consensus at κ = 0.85, and the agentic panel at κ = 0.87. The pipeline leans on ONET's task granularity for the US and on ILO occupation-to-country employment mappings for global coverage — both well-established but imperfect crosswalks. Integrity is the paper's standout feature. The rubric was preregistered at OSF before scoring began, with explicit correlation thresholds. The adoption-gap hypothesis — that middle-income countries would show a wider gap between delegability and observed AI usage — was preregistered and then honestly reported as unsupported (r = 0.86 correlation, p = 0.27 for the income interaction). Code, data, prompts, and an MCP server are all public on GitHub and Zenodo. The main integrity caveat is that validation is still LLM-vs-LLM-vs-human on a 300-task sample; there is no ground-truth 'actual delegation rate' to calibrate against, because the phenomenon hasn't happened yet at scale. The 12-minute finding deserves its own beat: full delegation peaks for tasks whose typical human completion time is about 11.8 minutes. This is a structural insight about the current capability envelope of AI agents — they handle discrete, bounded, well-specified tasks but not open-ended or physically embedded ones. It's a useful heuristic for any organization triaging its own automation portfolio. The obvious next experiment the authors did not run is longitudinal validation — tracking whether actual AI adoption patterns over the next 2-3 years match ADI predictions at the occupation-country level. The honest read: this is a 'waiting for the world to catch up' problem, not a compute or data problem. The index is a bet that can be scored, and the infrastructure to score it is in place.
