Accept the aggregate work reallocation position

In plain terms

Accept what the individual reallocation decisions amount to across the organization. Each was made locally and correctly by a Business Owner; nobody assessed the total.

What is being judged

The cumulative effect on the workforce of decisions that were each defensible in isolation.

This is the aggregate exposure pattern applied to people rather than to systems, and the same blindness applies. Twenty Business Owners each reallocating a portion of a role produce a change in what the organization employs that no single decision described.

Three things to assess. What the organization no longer does with people, stated as capability rather than headcount. Whether the remaining human work is coherent, since reallocating the routine portion of a role can leave a job composed entirely of exceptions, which is a different job nobody designed. Whether the organization retains enough practice to exercise oversight, because a function that no longer performs a task cannot competently review a system doing it, and that bears directly on Article 26(2) competence.

What this decision does not cover

It does not decide any individual reallocation, which is L5-12 and belongs to the Business Owner. It does not set headcount or make employment decisions.

When it fires

On event. When cumulative reallocation crosses the workforce reallocation materiality threshold at Layer 4 §5A. On a proposed reallocation that would cross it by itself.

On cycle. Per the stated assessment cycle.

What you need before deciding

The Layer 5 work reallocation records, aggregated. What capability the organization has stopped exercising. Which oversight roles depend on practice the organization no longer performs. The consultation or notification obligations triggered, which vary by jurisdiction and are frequently discovered late.

How this goes wrong

Aggregate blindness: individual reallocations are all recorded and nobody sums them, so the position is never accepted because it was never described. Assessed as headcount: the position is stated as roles removed, which measures cost and not capability, and misses the oversight competence question entirely. Accepted after the fact: the assessment runs annually and describes a position the organization reached eight months earlier.

Related decisions

Upstream L5-12 individual reallocations, Layer 4 §5A workforce reallocation materiality threshold.

Related L5-10 AI literacy and Article 26(2) competence, which this decision can quietly undermine.

Parallel L4-RSK-06, the same aggregate pattern applied to systems.

Instrument references

None. Every instrument addresses training people to work with AI systems. None addresses what happens to the work itself, or who is accountable for the cumulative consequence. Crosswalk gap 9.