Some people avoid AI in their creative work. A creator may want to record that AI did not participate in a particular work.
Other people use AI tools every day. A creator may use AI for drafting, analysis, organization, or other parts of a workflow. Those people may still want to distinguish between a lightly assisted work and one that was generated and barely reviewed.
The process can also vary with the task, the medium, the audience, and the stakes.
Human Quotient is designed for that range. It does not treat one point on the spectrum as the correct destination. A score is a statement about process, not a grade.
Different contexts, different expectations
A bulk summary can reasonably carry a low HQ if the sender is saying, “This is a generated summary; use it as a starting point.” A personal letter may carry a high HQ because the reader is being told that the creator shaped the expression directly.
The score gives both sides information. The creator can say what they are standing behind. The reader can decide how to engage with the work.
That is the role we want HQ to play: not enforcement, not accusation, and not a position in the argument about AI. Just a clearer description of how something came to be.