AI-assisted script generation and live topic tracking reshape requirements interviews: untrained interviewers using the workflow produced substantially higher-quality scripts (92.8 vs 74.8) and elicited more low-level requirements while focusing on fewer topics but asking more follow-ups per topic.

Main Finding

AI-assisted script management that (1) generates interview scripts grounded in business goals and (2) provides live topic-tracking plus on-demand follow-up question suggestions materially changes elicitation outcomes. Compared to a conventionally trained, AI-unassisted condition, a no-training group using the AI workflow produced higher-quality scripts, focused on fewer topics while probing deeper, covered more scripted questions, asked more targeted follow-ups, and yielded more refined (lower-level) requirements.

Key Points

• Experimental contrast: untrained interviewers using the AI-assisted workflow vs. trained interviewers using manual scripts (quasi-experimental, between-subjects).
• Script quality (rubric from elicitation best practices): AI-generated scripts scored substantially higher (92.8 vs. 74.8 out of 100).
• Topic coverage and interaction:
  • Fewer topics explored with AI assistance: 9.6 vs. 14.5 topics.
  • Greater coverage of scripted questions: 86% vs. 69%.
  • More follow-ups per topic: 3.43 vs. 1.15.
• Requirements refinement: goal models extracted from interviews had a higher fraction of lowest-level (concrete) goals in the AI-assisted condition (0.653 vs. 0.598).
• Perceived usefulness: 86% of AI-assisted interviewers rated topic tracking as the most useful workflow feature.
• Interpretation: AI assistance produced a different interview trajectory—more concentrated, deeper probing—leading to different requirements artifacts (more concrete, refined requirements).

Data & Methods

• Design
  • Between-subjects quasi-experiment; final sample: 21 AI-assisted dyads and 22 training-only dyads (48 initial, 5 excluded).
  • Participants: graduate students with ≥1 year industry technical experience; AI-assisted interviewers did not receive prior elicitation training; training-only interviewers received ~1 hour of class instruction + videos.
  • Each interviewer conducted a Zoom role-play interview with a stakeholder in one of 19 consumer-facing app categories.
• AI-assisted workflow (two phases)
  • Offline script generation:
    • Business goals mined from public SEC 10-K filings of companies in the relevant app category.
    • Goals extracted by an LLM and clustered using paraphrase embeddings (paraphrase-MiniLM-L6-v2) to produce consolidated goals (~8 per category).
    • Candidate topics derived and filtered by interviewer familiarity; final 7–8 topics fed to an LLM (gpt-5-mini) to generate scripts according to nine script-design rules (e.g., open-ended, context-free first, coherent ordering).
  • Online script management:
    • Zoom bot streams audio to real-time transcription.
    • Topic coverage tracking: sliding window of the last 4 speaker turns; gpt-5-mini classifies whether scripted topics were substantively addressed and returns evidence excerpts (low reasoning/verbosity to keep latency low).
    • On-demand follow-up generation: when requested, gpt-5-mini produces three constrained follow-up questions using the last 4 turns as context (open-ended, non-leading, <20 words, avoid implementation details).
• Evaluation measures
  • RQ1: Script conformity to best practices (rubric from literature).
  • RQ2: Interaction metrics — number of topics covered, percent scripted questions asked, follow-ups per topic, distribution of follow-ups across topics/questions.
  • RQ3: Requirements breadth and refinement measured via goal models extracted from transcripts; metric reported: fraction of lowest-level goals (concrete requirements).
• Tooling / models: gpt-5-mini for generation and classification, paraphrase-MiniLM-L6-v2 embeddings for clustering; Zoom-based transcription pipeline.

Implications for AI Economics

• Productivity and task substitution
  • AI workflows can enable less-trained practitioners to produce high-quality preparatory artifacts (scripts) and reach more concrete requirements, suggesting potential substitution/complementation effects: less need for extensive elicitation training while maintaining or improving downstream artifact quality.
  • Firms may reallocate training budgets away from basic elicitation pedagogy toward higher-value activities (e.g., domain expertise, oversight), altering the economics of human capital investment.
• Labor market and skill premiums
  • Demand may shift toward workers who can effectively use AI-assisted tools (tooling literacy, oversight, judgement), increasing the premium on AI–human collaboration skills and reducing premium on routine interview technique.
  • Entry-level practitioners could be productive sooner, compressing on-boarding time and reducing short-run labor costs for elicitation tasks.
• Quality, downstream costs, and value capture
  • More refined, lower-level requirements reduce ambiguity and can lower downstream development rework — potential cost savings and faster time-to-market. However, narrower focus (fewer topics) could risk missing broader concerns unless prompts/business-goal grounding are comprehensive.
  • Grounding scripts in business goals improves alignment between elicited requirements and strategic priorities, potentially improving value capture from product investments.
• Scaling and specialization
  • Organizations can scale stakeholder interviews across more teams using AI scaffolds, decentralizing elicitation work from specialized RE teams to product engineers or PMs. This could reduce bottlenecks but also centralize responsibility for oversight.
• Risks, incentives, and governance
  • Over-reliance on LLM outputs could produce systematic blind spots (e.g., biases in mined business goals, filtering out stakeholder-unknown but important topics). Firms need verification and auditing processes.
  • Liability and accountability: if AI-suggested follow-ups steer interviews and produce flawed requirements, firms must clarify who is responsible (human-in-loop oversight remains essential).
  • Incentive misalignment: efficiency gains may push organizations toward narrower, faster elicitation at the cost of breadth; incentive structures should balance depth and breadth relative to product risk.
• Research & policy implications
  • Economic evaluations should measure downstream impacts (development time, defect rates, rework cost) to quantify overall ROI of AI-assisted elicitation.
  • Policymakers and standards bodies may need to consider guidelines for human oversight, provenance, and transparency when AI shapes requirements that affect critical systems.

Summary: The paper provides empirical evidence that AI-assisted script generation plus live script management changes how interviews proceed and the form of elicited requirements—making interviews more focused and producing more concrete requirements. Economically, this implies shifted investments in training, altered labor complementarities, potential cost savings downstream, and new governance needs to manage risks associated with AI-enabled elicitation.