The AI adoption narrative in 2026 is badly broken. Companies announce AI investments to impress investors while simultaneously reducing headcount. PR teams frame layoffs as "restructuring toward AI." Executives celebrate "efficiency gains" that translate directly to job losses.
Job seekers, employees, and investors have no reliable way to distinguish between companies genuinely using AI to expand human capability — and companies using AI as cover to reduce it.
Human+ exists to fill that gap using only publicly observable signals: job postings, earnings call language, SEC filings, headcount data, product announcements, and company communications.
When a company deploys AI, does the number of humans doing meaningful work go up, stay flat, or go down?
Everything in our methodology flows from that question.
We do not accept payments from companies. We do not offer "verified" badges for sale. We do not run advertising. A company cannot buy its way into — or out of — our directory.
We only use information that is independently verifiable by anyone. We do not rely on anonymous tips, internal documents, or unverifiable claims. Every data point in a company's score can be traced to a public source.
| Source | Type | What We Extract | Refresh |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layoffs.fyi | Database | Layoff events, scale, AI-cited reason flags, date of event | Weekly |
| Public Profile | Open job count, role type changes, headcount trend (employee count display) | Monthly | |
| SEC EDGAR | Regulatory Filing | Annual/quarterly employee count, AI risk factor language, exec compensation vs. headcount correlation | Quarterly |
| Annual Reports | Corporate Filing | Headcount YoY, reskilling investment, AI strategy framing, HR metrics | Annually |
| Earnings Call Transcripts | Public Record | Executive language analysis — "efficiency" vs. "augmentation" framing, workforce plans | Quarterly |
| Company Newsroom / Blog | Primary Source | AI product launches, reskilling announcements, workforce commitments | As published |
| Press Reports | Journalism | Third-party verification of workforce changes, investigative findings | As published |
| PwC / Deloitte / McKinsey / Gartner | Research | Sector-wide benchmarks for augmentation vs. replacement rates | Annually |
| TrueUp / Crunchbase | Database | Headcount trend data, funding vs. hiring correlation | Monthly |
Each company is assessed against 13 signal criteria — 7 positive (augmentation) and 6 negative (replacement). Points are awarded or deducted based on what the public data shows. Scores update when new data warrants a change, and every change is tracked with a delta indicator.
Scores map to one of six tiers. The tiers are not labels — they are action recommendations for job seekers evaluating employers, workers monitoring their current employer, and investors considering ESG criteria.
Clear, consistent, verifiable evidence that AI is expanding human roles. Hiring while deploying. Revenue growth preserving headcount. Safe choice for employees and investors alike.
Positive signals outweigh negative. Some mixed data may exist (e.g., recovery from prior cuts) but the trajectory is augmentation. Probably safe.
Weak positive signals. Company may be early in AI adoption, or the evidence is ambiguous. Monitor quarterly — score could move in either direction.
Evidence is contradictory. May have reskilling programs alongside quiet headcount cuts. Requires close monitoring. Not safe to assume positive intent.
Negative signals dominate. AI is likely being used to reduce rather than augment workforce. Avoid if you value employment stability.
Unambiguous replacement pattern confirmed by multiple public data sources. CEO communications confirm intent. Active flag in our directory. Avoid.
Company Selected
A company is selected for review via community submission, media coverage of an AI workforce event, or proactive monitoring of companies above a size threshold. Priority given to companies with recent AI announcements or layoff events.
Public Data Gathered
We collect all relevant public data points: LinkedIn headcount trend, open job count, Layoffs.fyi records, earnings call transcripts, annual report HR sections, and press coverage from the prior 12 months.
Rubric Applied
Each signal criterion is evaluated against the evidence. Points are awarded only when the signal is clearly present. Ambiguous data does not earn points in either direction — it results in lower confidence on the entry.
Independent Check
A second reviewer validates the score independently using the same source data. Disagreements of more than ±2 points trigger a third review. Final score requires consensus.
Entry Published
Entry goes live with score, tier, evidence sources, last-verified date, and key notes. All sources cited are accessible publicly. Companies are not notified prior to publication.
Score Updated
Each entry is re-evaluated quarterly, or immediately when a triggering event occurs (layoff announcement, major hiring surge, earnings call with notable language). Delta indicators show quarterly score changes.
The directory is a living document. Scores change when data changes. The delta indicator on each card shows the net change from the prior quarter. A flat company is not necessarily safe — absence of new data is noted as such.
United States · United Kingdom · Germany · Sweden · Netherlands · France · Spain · Australia · Canada · India · Brazil · Switzerland · Ireland
Expanding to: Japan · South Korea · Singapore · South Africa · Mexico
Technology · Finance · Healthcare · Manufacturing · Retail · Professional Services · Media & Creative · Telecommunications · Education
Expanding to: Energy & Utilities · Logistics · Agriculture Tech
We prioritize companies where the AI/workforce decision is consequential — large enough that their choices affect many workers, and in sectors where AI displacement risk is high enough to matter.
We do not currently track companies with fewer than 50 employees. At that scale, individual hiring decisions are too noisy to evaluate against our rubric reliably.
We do not weight country of headquarters against country of workforce. A US-headquartered company with primarily Indian or European employees is evaluated on the basis of its global workforce data, not its HQ location.
If a company you care about is not in our directory, submit it for review →