Workplace Ambiguity and Technology Support for Autistic and IDD Workers

arXiv:2610.21236v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Workplace ambiguity, where expectations, evaluations, or procedures are left unstated, acts as a structural access barrier for autistic and IDD workers, routinely forcing them to act on guesses. To investigate how these barriers operate, we interviewed 11 caregivers, concluding with an AI co-design activity to explore technological solutions. Their perspectives revealed five themes of workplace ambiguity, which we synthesize into a conceptual framework comprising three intersecting dimensions: evaluative, procedural, and relational. To address these barriers, participants proposed three forms of technology support, including ambient real-time redirection, feedback processing, and physiological guidance, designed to make hidden expectations perceptible and actionable. However, this exposes a core tension: technologies designed to make the workplace legible can inadvertently make the worker hyper-legible to employers through surveillance. We argue that ambiguity-aware workplaces must make expectations explicit before they carry consequences, and assistive technologies must remain accountable to the worker.

The study highlights workplace ambiguity as a barrier for autistic and IDD workers, and while AI co-design solutions are proposed, they also risk increasing worker surveillance.

This is early-stage, small-sample qualitative research proposing AI tools to help autistic and IDD workers navigate workplace ambiguity, with a built-in caution about surveillance risks. It is neither a deployed system nor a societal-scale claim, so implications remain modest and balanced by the paper's own critical framing.

The paper identifies a specific problem and proposes AI-driven solutions. The primary benefit is increased employment and support for marginalized groups. The main risk is increased surveillance, but this is acknowledged and mitigated in the paper.

SOURCE     arXiv cs.CY (Computers and Society) (tier 1)
   ↓
DOCUMENT   8f68e826-46a4-4e34-918f-d5a35374d88e
           https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21236
   ↓
EVIDENCE   2 extracted excerpts
   ↓
MODEL RUN  3 runs, methodology 1.0.1
   ↓
SCORE      +40  (Favourable)
   ↓
CONFIDENCE 77%