INDEPENDENT POLICY & RESEARCHConceptual framework Edition 0.17.0
Mutual AI Resilience · MAR-HTP

Compare Italy–Albania support workflows

Compare current practice, structured human coordination, and a proposed central coordinator with the same fictional support demand and resources.

Compare civilian support capacity

Start with a fictional queue of aggregate requests for victim support. See how much work a local support service could complete and how many requests could remain open. Use the same time interval and definition of a completed request throughout.

The three arrangements start with the same caseload and processing capacity. Declared throughput sets the workload result. A request count can include repeat requests.

In the fictional example, every arrangement completes 41 of 42 requests. Open requests at the end of period 4 total 1.

Use fictional totals. The worksheet runs locally in this browser and accepts only aggregate exercise inputs. Actual participation, referral and disclosure require separate review and applicable consent.

This exercise describes workload and local process constraints. It does not measure a person’s risk, the incidence of trafficking, the outcome of assistance, or the causal effect of AI.

What could change the result?

An early handoff helps only if someone has the staff and capacity to follow up. Compare unresolved requests, review effort, and costs in their own units. Test cooperation under the same deadline and staffing first. Then change an assumption and write down why it changed. A lower backlog in one exercise can result from more capacity and provides no estimate of criminal activity or trafficking prevalence.

Test what happens when coordination stops Estimate separate pilot costs