What Must Not Be Overlooked in the AI Era: The Ability to Separate 'Two Types of Judgment' and 'Two Types of Knowledge' (Organizational Behavioral Science®)
Judgment Design Laboratory by Request Co., Ltd. released a report analyzing that workplace stagnation in the AI era is caused by confusing fact-based judgment with precedent-based task management.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: March 29, 2026 at 20:17
- 🔍 Collected: April 1, 2026 at 13:27 (65h 10m after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 21, 2026 at 10:12 (476h 44m after Collected)
Judgment Design Laboratory, operated by Request Co., Ltd. (Headquarters: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo; CEO: Tomoyasu Kohata), has published a report titled "What Must Not Be Overlooked in the AI Era: The Ability to Separate 'Two Types of Judgment' and 'Two Types of Knowledge'."
With the spread of generative AI, corporate work is beginning to change significantly. Researching knowledge, organizing information, referencing existing cases, and processing via predefined procedures will increasingly be handled by AI.
On the other hand, what remains for humans is the work of deciding what to confirm, what to prioritize, how much of past precedents to use, and where to change the approach, especially when conditions differ by customer, project, site, and stakeholders.
However, many companies have yet to fully organize this shift.
■ The underlying issue is treating judgment and knowledge as single, uniform concepts.
This report categorizes them by stating:
- Judgment consists of "precedent-based judgment" and "fact-based judgment."
- Knowledge consists of "knowledge not requiring experience" and "knowledge requiring experience."
It points out that much of the confusion occurring in companies during the AI era stems from confounding these four elements. A particular problem arises when tasks that inherently require experience-based knowledge and fact-based judgment are managed through precedent application or model answers.
As a result, frontline workers often experience situations such as:
- Understanding increases, but judgment does not
- Work is done according to precedent, but doesn't progress as well as before
- Rework and additional handling increase
- Difficult cases concentrate on a few veterans or managers
- Work is turning over, but no next strategic moves emerge
This report reframes these phenomena not merely as a lack of ability, but as a "misplacement" against original establishing conditions. In other words, it concludes that the root of stagnation is treating work that originally requires fact-based judgment and experience-based knowledge as if it can be managed solely by applying precedents and teaching knowledge.
With the spread of generative AI, corporate work is beginning to change significantly. Researching knowledge, organizing information, referencing existing cases, and processing via predefined procedures will increasingly be handled by AI.
On the other hand, what remains for humans is the work of deciding what to confirm, what to prioritize, how much of past precedents to use, and where to change the approach, especially when conditions differ by customer, project, site, and stakeholders.
However, many companies have yet to fully organize this shift.
■ The underlying issue is treating judgment and knowledge as single, uniform concepts.
This report categorizes them by stating:
- Judgment consists of "precedent-based judgment" and "fact-based judgment."
- Knowledge consists of "knowledge not requiring experience" and "knowledge requiring experience."
It points out that much of the confusion occurring in companies during the AI era stems from confounding these four elements. A particular problem arises when tasks that inherently require experience-based knowledge and fact-based judgment are managed through precedent application or model answers.
As a result, frontline workers often experience situations such as:
- Understanding increases, but judgment does not
- Work is done according to precedent, but doesn't progress as well as before
- Rework and additional handling increase
- Difficult cases concentrate on a few veterans or managers
- Work is turning over, but no next strategic moves emerge
This report reframes these phenomena not merely as a lack of ability, but as a "misplacement" against original establishing conditions. In other words, it concludes that the root of stagnation is treating work that originally requires fact-based judgment and experience-based knowledge as if it can be managed solely by applying precedents and teaching knowledge.