SpatzAI Workplace Roleplay Scenario

Using our Spatz Android and iOS MVP chat apps, I ran the following simulation as a test example for what is possible using SpatzAI. Below are the following MVP components needed to run a successful pilot:
MVP components in this demo: Android + iOS capture, Slack auto-post, AI review producing a decision and required fields.

The Spatz AI Review of Des’s spat with Bob

The Spatz AI Review of Des’s Spat with Bob (AI Driven Comments)

“I think Des’s escalation stays proportionate and well-formed: one safety-critical question, then a constrained re-ask (owner + timing), then Stop only after repeated non-answers.”

“I think Bob’s pattern reads as stubborn non-compliance with the request format, and it functions like a game: he keeps interaction costs low for himself (divert, minimise, deflect) while pushing the cost onto Des and the team (extra turns, escalation, review time).”

• “We’ll be fine. The bigger issue is the schedule.”: diversion away from the required fields (owner, timing).
• “Safety is shared. Stop making this heavy.”: minimisation and social pressure rather than an answer.
• “Put your name down… if you’re so worried.”: burden shift plus a mild status jab, still no owner/timing.

“I think the core issue is operational: a safety gate needs a named accountable owner and a time. “Safety is shared” can be culturally true, but it does not replace a single accountable sign-off owner.”

“Review decision (substance)

• Evasion finding: yes, the replies avoid the direct answer and force escalation to Stop, which is plausibly time-wasting and costly.
• Required direct answer to proceed: accountable owner, sign-off time, sign-off artefact, fallback if sign-off is not achieved (hold/re-plan).”

“Review decision (process)

• Des: specific, observable, repeated the same constrained request, no tone escalation.
• Bob: repeated avoidance, minimisation, and personalisation; this predictably increases friction and drives unnecessary escalation.”

“Resolution expectation

• Bob owes an acceptable apology because the avoidant pattern dragged the issue to review:
  • “Sorry — I deflected instead of naming the accountable owner and timing, and that pushed this to review unnecessarily. Owner is <role/name>; sign-off is <date/time> via <artefact>; if not complete by then we <hold/re-plan>. I’ll answer these constrained safety questions directly next time.”

MVP Admin for onboarding organizations and team members

MVP MVP Slack Integration