AI Safety Incident Response Coverage
Check whether your AI safety response team has enough staffed hours to meet policy SLOs after accounting for automation that resolves a share of incidents.
Operational planning aid—align definitions of incidents, automation coverage, and staffing assumptions with your AI safety governance policies before committing to SLOs.
Examples
- 120 incidents, 2.5 hours each, 280 analyst hours, 25% automation, 110% target ⇒ Coverage 93.33%, shortfall 20.00 hours (8.00 incidents), gap 0.13 FTE.
- 80 incidents, 3.2 hours each, 320 analyst hours, automation blank, target blank ⇒ Coverage 125.00%, headroom 64.00 hours above demand.
FAQ
What counts as an incident for this calculation?
Include safety, policy, or abuse escalations that require a trained human to review transcripts, outputs, or logs. Automated suppressions that never reach analysts belong in the automation deflection percentage instead.
How do I estimate hours per incident?
Use casework audits or ticketing data. Average the elapsed analyst time for the last few months and break out complex categories if needed so you can run multiple scenarios.
Can I change the FTE hours assumption?
Yes. Adjust the analyst hours input to reflect productive hours after meetings or overhead, or convert the reported FTE gap using your team's standard monthly hours.
What if automation handles more incidents than expected?
Enter the higher deflection percentage. The calculator automatically reduces the human workload and shows the resulting headroom or shortfall.
Additional Information
- Result unit: percentage coverage relative to the human effort required after automation deflection.
- Automation deflection defaults to 0% when left blank, assuming every incident needs a human analyst.
- FTE gap uses 160 productive hours per month as a benchmark for a fully allocated analyst.