Contract law, not just technology, decides whether firms can certify retained human skills: in jurisdictions where liability exposure is constrained by penalty doctrines, pooled indemnity, or mandatory cap floors, firms cannot use caps to signal fallback capability and simulations predict falling engagement and eventual skill erosion. The paper shows regulators and managers must treat liability rules as workforce‑capability instruments, because the legal margin binding in each jurisdiction determines whether operational investments or contractual pledges can sustain human competence.

Main Finding

Legal institutions — not just technology — determine whether liability-based signals can preserve firms’ human fallback capability when generative AI makes artifacts indistinguishable. An “institutional wedge” between posted contractual caps and the provider’s retained, information-carrying exposure compresses separation into an occupation- and jurisdiction-specific signaling window [s, s̄]. Where that window is empty, markets converge to zero human engagement and collapse of fallback skill; where it exists, its width and binding margin depend on four legal primitives (cost-allocation/enforcement, the penalty doctrine, displacement/pooling of liability, and mandatory cap floors).

Key Points

• Institutional wedge and Λ(K; J, v):

  • The paper formalizes the mapping Λ(K; J, v) from a posted contractual cap K to the actually retained exposure that carries informational content, indexed by jurisdiction J. Λ is the product of three effects: displacement (ψ), the penalty-doctrine ceiling (m κ v), and an enforcement viability indicator (cost-rule).
  • Expected liability cost to a provider of type s: C(s,K) = θ π [1 − ρ(s)] Λ(K; J, v), where θ is ex post verifiability and ρ(s) the rescue probability.

• Two-sided institutional compression (the signaling window [s, s̄]):

  • Upper bound s̄: solvency/collateral limits (very high-types cannot post required collateral).
  • Lower bound s: mandatory cap floors or standard-terms control can void low caps and force pooling; a consumer-protection floor destroys informational variation for the lower part of the type space.
  • Single-crossing (separation) survives iff Λ is strictly increasing over a non-degenerate range.

• Penalty doctrine → operational vs legal response:

  • To compensate for imperfect verifiability providers must post exposure grossed up by 1/θ. The common-law penalty doctrine limits enforceable supra-compensatory exposure (m ≈ 1 in US; ≈1.2 in post‑Cavendish UK), so the contractual channel often cannot deliver the required gross-up.
  • Formal condition in the liquidated-damages channel: m ≥ 1/θ. If this fails (typical under common law), providers must instead invest in verifiability (raise θ) through logging, audits, acceptance criteria, etc. Thus a doctrinal rule in contract law determines whether firms’ optimal response is contractual or operational.

• Verifiability investment is ambiguous:

  • Raising θ lowers the required pledge at every type, which can (i) loosen the ceiling (good) but (ii) push more types below a mandatory floor (bad). Hence raising θ can widen the window where the ceiling binds but narrow it where a cap floor binds — in some calibrations raising θ reduces the window.

• Reliability paradox:

  • The minimum engagement share needed to maintain fallback skill is h_min = γ/(φπ + γ). As AI becomes more reliable (π falls), h_min increases — i.e., more human engagement is required to maintain skill because failures are the only learning events. Example calibrations: radiology (π = 0.10) ⇒ h_min ≈ 0.92; software (π = 0.30) ⇒ h_min ≈ 0.75.

• Dynamics and market outcome:

  • An agent-based market with mobile workers and censored public records shows that every (occupation, jurisdiction) cell with an empty signaling window converges to zero engagement and complete fallback-skill collapse. The institutional regime — not just AI capability — determines the long-run human capability stock.

Data & Methods

• Theoretical model:

  • Single-period client arrivals; AI fails with probability π. Human fallback skill s ∈ [0, α] implies recovery probability ρ(s) = ρ_max (s/α)^a (a ∈ (0,1), concave).
  • Firms choose engagement share h ∈ [0,1]; skill evolves st+1 = st + (α − st)(1 − π)[φπ h t − γ(1 − h t)] with learning rate φ and erosion γ.
  • Clients observe posted cap K; ex post verifiability θ is probability a failure can be proven. Client stake χ = ω ζ v π.
  • Institutional wedge Λ(K; J, v) (Definition 1) composes displacement ψ, penalty-doctrine multiple m (and κ aggregation factor), and enforcement viability (cost-rule captured by (c0,c1,ac) and small-claims features).

• Calibration:

  • Occupations: software development, legal research, radiology, audit, social work.
  • Jurisdictions/regimes: Germany, Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom (private B2B channel and NHS channel), United States (B2B and B2C configurations).
  • Calibration inputs drawn from published evidence on AI error rates, deskilling/engagement effects (e.g., Singh et al.; Budzyń et al. as one datapoint), and enforcement cost/practice (statutory fee schedules, small‑claims tracks, penalty-doctrine case law). The paper does not estimate legal parameters statistically but operationalizes them from institutional sources (Table 1 maps legal primitives to calibrated values and observables).
  • Sensitivity and global-decomposition: displacement (pooled/state liability) is the most influential parameter (first-order Sobol index ≈ 0.31) versus the cap floor (≈ 0.003), highlighting configuration-specific importance.

• Simulations:

  • Agent-based market with mobile workers, a Builder (invests in engagement), a Free-Rider (poaches), and clients forming beliefs from a censored public record.
  • The simulation is used illustratively under a specified policy class (not a general equilibrium proof). Interactive simulator and code are provided in the electronic companion.

Implications for AI Economics

• Liability rules are workforce-capability instruments:

  • Law shapes firms’ incentives to maintain human fallback capability. Regulators and policymakers should view caps, pooling, and penalty doctrines as tools that affect long-run human capital in AI‑augmented service provision, not merely as risk-allocation devices.

• Policy tradeoffs:

  • Consumer-protection measures that require minimum recoveries (cap floors) and pooled/state indemnity can suppress liability signals that sustain fallback capacity. These protections may increase nominal recoveries but can eliminate firms’ incentives (or ability) to credibly signal and preserve human capability in the lower type range.
  • Conversely, doctrines that permit supra-compensatory agreed damages (civil-law penalty acceptance) make the contractual channel more viable for signaling; where common-law penalty rules constrain contractual exposure, the operational response (raising verifiability θ) becomes necessary.

• Managerial guidance:

  • Firms should diagnose which institutional margin binds in each jurisdiction–occupation cell and target that margin (e.g., invest in verifiability where penalty doctrine blocks exposure increases; lobby or design alternative instruments where pooled indemnity or cap floors suppress signals).
  • Operational investments (logging, auditability, forensic reconstruction) are substitutes for contractual exposure in some jurisdictions but can be counterproductive where cap floors bind — they can shrink the signaling window.

• Research and measurement implications:

  • Empirical work on AI’s labor impacts should account for legal and institutional heterogeneity; identical technology can yield divergent human-capability outcomes across jurisdictions due to liability architecture.
  • Policy evaluations of pooled indemnity or mandatory floors should incorporate long-run human-skill externalities (deskilling and learning dynamics), not only immediate redistribution or loss-recovery goals.

• Broader theoretical lesson:

  • Credence-good signaling with an endogenously produced operational asset interacts nonlinearly with legal constraints. Institutional details (penalty doctrine, enforceability, third‑party payment, mandatory floors) generate qualitatively different market dynamics and long‑run capability equilibria; ignoring them risks mis-predicting whether liability-based certification can sustain human fallback skills in AI-augmented services.