ReHuman Formation Index

What is your institution's AI adoption forming?

AI-readiness scores measure institutional capability. The ReHuman Formation Index measures institutional formation — what your use of AI is teaching persons, processes, and relationships to become. Ten minutes returns four domain readings, one formation profile, and three questions calibrated to your next cabinet conversation.

Developed by Dr. J.R. Andrews, author of ReHuman: Artificial Intelligence and the Recovery of Persons.

This is not an AI-readiness survey.

It does not reward adoption, enthusiasm, or technical maturity. It examines whether AI-enabled practice is serving or displacing human goods higher education exists to form.

PersonhoodAre people treated as irreducible persons rather than classifications or outputs?

AnswerabilityCan a real person still own, explain, revise, and bear responsibility?

FormationAre the processes that actually form capacities being preserved?

PresenceAre consequential human encounters and continuity protected where they matter?

From the ReHuman Manuscript

"You are already teaching anthropology. The only question is whether it is thick enough to remain human."ReHuman, Prompt 17

The ReHuman Formation Index accompanies ReHuman: Artificial Intelligence and the Recovery of Persons — a scholarly manifesto addressed to the presidents, provosts, deans, and faculty leaders now deciding how AI enters the life of the institution.

The eight to ten minutes this instrument asks of you are for the questions dashboards will not name. The instrument's usefulness begins where reading it stops.

Four readingsPersonhood, Answerability, Formation, Presence — evidence-qualified, no composite score.

A formation profileOne of seven institutional patterns, paired with a passage from the manuscript.

Three questionsCalibrated to your reading, worth carrying into your next cabinet or faculty conversation.

Methodological note

The RFI is a first-generation diagnostic instrument undergoing expert review, cognitive testing, and field testing. It measures perceived institutional practice from a stated vantage point. It is not a validated institutional ranking. Domain scores are reported separately; there is no composite score.

Approximately 8–10 minutes · Your full result appears before any email is requested.

Step 1 · Calibration

Set your evidence frame.

These fields calibrate what the following questions can meaningfully ask of you. Broad authority, AI exposure, and direct observation are not the same thing, and the instrument keeps them separate.

Answer from evidence, not reputation.
Use the part of the institution you actually know. "Not enough evidence" is excluded from scoring. "Conflicting evidence" is also allowed when credible observations point in materially different directions.

Vantage point Where are you locating your answers?

Role Collected now as pilot metadata; it does not yet change the question route.

AI exposure How much AI-influenced practice is actually present?

Observation depth How directly can you observe what you are rating?

Relational consequence Presence is scored only when relational consequence is established.

Complete all five evidence-frame fields before continuing.

Evidence frame

ReHuman requires observable AI-influenced practice.

You indicated that AI is not yet observably present in this area. The RFI is designed to examine what happens when AI participates in institutional practice, so completing the assessment from this frame would not produce a useful diagnostic.

No score will be produced from this frame.
Return to the evidence frame and choose another area only if you can credibly observe AI-influenced practice there.

Learn about ReHuman →

Adaptive path0%

Select a response before continuing.

Your diagnostic snapshot

Four readings. Evidence-qualified interpretation.

Scores describe what you reported from the evidence frame you selected. Preserve or Redesign recommendations appear only when the evidence is adequate enough to justify them.

A question to carry forward

Where is efficiency serving these human goods — and where might it be beginning to overrule them?

Name one place in your work where this tension is live right now.

Optional. A sentence or two is enough. This is your working note, not a survey field.

Email and save this result

Your full result is already visible. Submit only if you want a copy connected to your email address. Optional correspondence and research permissions are separate.

First name

Last name

Email *

Institution

Institution sector

Institution setting

Role used for this result

Primary institutional designation Choose the designation most relevant to this RFI submission.

Scores are interpretable within your chosen vantage point; they are not designed for comparison across different institutional frames. No composite score is produced. "Not enough evidence" and "Conflicting evidence" are not converted into zeroes. Presence is not scored unless relational consequence is established. Adaptive anchor substitutions are retained in the raw-response and route metadata and visibly tagged so later analysis can distinguish primary from substitute evidence. Conflict precedence applies to subsequent responses and does not retroactively reclassify earlier broad-frame evidence. This is a first-generation diagnostic instrument; domain scores describe perceived institutional practice, not a psychometrically validated ranking.