Users ask for proactive writing help when tasks are compositionally demanding, not when they're urgent — though they say the opposite. Systems trained on self-reports perform worse (57.7% accuracy) than those using observed behavior (61.3%, p<0.05).

Main Finding

Users wanting proactive AI writing help are driven primarily by compositional effort (how hard the draft is to write), not by urgency. However, users mistakenly believe urgency is their top driver. Designing systems from stated preferences (surveys) therefore misleads optimization: rules based on revealed behavior outperform stated-preference rules and match or exceed ML models trained on the same contextual features.

Key quantitative results - Compositional effort: Spearman ρ = 0.597 (strongest behavioral predictor, p < 0.05).
- Urgency: ρ ≈ 0 (no behavioral predictive power).
- Users’ self-reported rank: urgency ranked highest (mean rank 2.06); effort received only moderate stated importance (mean rank 2.18) — a complete preference inversion.
- System performance: stated-preference weighting → 57.7% accuracy; behavioral weighting → 61.3% accuracy (difference significant, p < 0.05). Best ML model (Random Forest using main effects) ≈ 60.5–60.8% accuracy.
- Interactions dominate feature importance (61.7%), but adding interactions gives no predictive benefit beyond main effects in this binary-feature setting.

Key Points

• Dominant behavioral driver: compositional effort (users want help when drafting is complex or multi-step).
• Urgency misperceived: users report urgency as the main trigger (both in immediate justifications and especially in retrospective reflections), yet urgency has near-zero effect on revealed choices.
• Interaction heuristics: users apply a “high-stakes, high-burden” heuristic — AI help is most desired when effort is high and the recipient is important.
• Metacognitive heterogeneity: comfort with AI predicts metacognitive accuracy. Users comfortable with AI align stated and revealed preferences better; low-comfort users invert them.
• Practical modelling: simple behavioral weighting rules (based on revealed preferences) match or slightly outperform ML models trained on the same small set of contextual features. Correct weighting matters more than algorithmic complexity in this setting.
• Qualitative signals: users mention urgency frequently (over-reported), while complexity and template/predictability concerns are central to whether they’d accept AI assistance.

Data & Methods

• Domain: email drafting (ecologically relevant, frequent writing task).
• Design: 2×2×2×2 factorial vignette design manipulating four binary dimensions — urgency, compositional effort, sender importance, email type — yielding 16 scenarios. Scenarios generated with GPT-5 for consistency.
• Participants: 50 professional email users. Each made 15 randomly sampled pairwise comparisons (750 total pairwise comparisons). Participants also gave justifications and completed exit surveys ranking dimensions.
• Behavioral modelling: Bradley–Terry model to derive scenario preference strengths from pairwise choices; Spearman correlations and ordinal logistic regression to identify drivers.
• ML validation: Logistic regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and a neural net trained with 5-fold cross-validation on (a) main effects and (b) main effects + pairwise interactions. Main-effects-only models achieved ~59.7% mean accuracy; Random Forest with main effects ≈ 60.5–60.8%.
• System comparison: three rule-based strategies (Uniform, Stated Preference weights from surveys, Behavioral weights from revealed preferences) compared to best ML model. Behavioral weighting produced best accuracy (61.3%).
• Qualitative analysis: LLM-assisted thematic coding of 750 justifications and 50 reflections, supporting the quantitative findings and revealing themes like template predictability and verification friction.

Limitations to note - Sample size modest (N = 50) and binary vignette manipulations — may limit generalizability.
- Scenarios generated by GPT-5; ecological realism is high for email but still vignette-based (not in-the-wild logging).
- Results are specific to email drafting; other writing domains may differ.
- Binary feature space reduces interaction information; continuous/real-world signals might change model behavior.

Implications for AI Economics

Design, deployment, and measurement - Don’t trust stated-preference surveys alone for system optimization. Relying on self-reports can invert priorities and reduce system effectiveness (here, a ~3.6 percentage-point accuracy gap and underperformance versus naive baselines). For product teams, that translates to worse targeting of proactive assistance, increased interruption costs, and lower user satisfaction.
- Instrument for revealed preferences. Collect lightweight behavioral signals (e.g., metrics of drafting complexity, time spent composing, template matches, recipient importance) and use revealed-choice calibration to set triggering heuristics. Behavioral heuristics can be implemented cheaply and may match ML performance, reducing deployment complexity and compute costs.
- Prioritize cognitive-load indicators over temporal signals. Because compositional effort drives requests for help, investments that detect or infer cognitive burden (e.g., number/complexity of edits, presence of required facts, number of information sources to synthesize) will yield higher return-on-investment for proactive NLG features than focusing on deadline or urgency estimators.
- Personalization and user heterogeneity: users’ AI comfort predicts metacognitive accuracy. Economics of product segmentation: segment users by AI comfort/adoption and tailor defaults — e.g., expose behavioral defaults for low-comfort users and allow more control or transparent explanations for high-comfort users. This reduces mis-targeted interventions and potential churn.

Business and welfare trade-offs - Reduced verification friction matters. Users adopt AI when outputs are easy to verify; design features that lower verification cost (confidence indicators, highlighted AI-generated text, suggested edits) can increase adoption and decrease downstream correction costs. Economically, this can increase productivity gains per model inference and reduce wasted attention.
- Cost of mis-specified triggers: wrong triggers (e.g., prompting for urgent-but-low-effort drafts) impose interruption costs and wasted compute; the paper quantifies a tangible accuracy loss when optimizing to stated preferences. Firms can translate this into expected labor/productivity losses or user-engagement impacts and thus justify instrumentation and A/B testing expenditures.
- Simpler behavioral rules can be cost-effective. When correct weights are known or can be reliably estimated from behavior, firms may deploy lightweight heuristics that achieve near-ML performance — a pragmatic win when data or engineering resources are limited.

Research implications - Future economic analyses should value revealed-behavior collection (field experiments, instrumented logs) over surveys when calibrating incentives or triggers for AI assistance.
- Extending to continuous and richer signals (textual features, sequence-of-actions, timing) may improve prediction and change the balance between main effects and interactions; investment in richer labeling and causal inference could increase targeting returns.

Bottom line For proactive NLG in email, observed behavior shows users want help for high-effort compositions, not for urgent ones — even though users say the opposite. Designing from revealed preferences yields better-performing and potentially cheaper systems than designing from what users say they want. Product and economic decisions (resource allocation, experimentation budgets, segmentation strategies) should prioritize collecting and optimizing on behavioral signals rather than stated preferences.