{"resourceId":"police-posttrial-adoption-perceptions-2025","versions":[{"version":"external-776c65dbe01ae06d562ff96b74df85f55386aec0f4e34ec9dc8c12ad43a4944d","resource":{"id":"police-posttrial-adoption-perceptions-2025","title":"Post-trial survey separates officer enthusiasm from verified reporting benefits","organization":"Hunter Boehme and colleagues","sector":"Policing","geography":"New Hampshire, United States; single agency","publishedAt":"March 19, 2025 preprint release","publicationDate":"2025-03-19","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"CrimRxiv","sourceLabel":"Original academic preprint; post-intervention survey","sourceUrl":"https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/k3lb349u/release/1","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["knowledge-work","data-security","accessibility-workforce","governance-procurement","operating-model"],"finding":"Favorable attitudes did not differ significantly between treated and control officers; reported workflow problems complicate adoption.","sledRelevance":"Historical workforce evidence complements the archived Manchester timing trial; this is a separate survey, not independent replication.","evidence":"Final analytical sample: 96 respondents. Table 2 records 19 of 40 time-question respondents perceiving savings and 19 perceiving no difference. These are self-reports, not measured labor reductions. Methods use group comparisons and descriptive analysis.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: Instrument camera ingestion, narrative drafting, structured records entry and approval as separate stages.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: Define success independently of satisfaction scores.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Interpretation: Keep protected recordings within authorized case permissions throughout evaluation.","caveats":"Single agency, immediate post-intervention perceptions, uneven item denominators, limited demographic diversity. No objective quality or downstream court outcome assessment. Preprint version inspected.","streamIds":["public-safety"],"roles":{"sales":"Interpretation: Command staff, records supervisors, training leads and finance teams need to understand whether a reporting assistant addresses their bottleneck. Ask which incident types staff actually choose it for, where corrections accumulate, and whether enthusiasm survives complex cases. A bounded engagement could map one reporting category and develop a balanced adoption and workload scorecard. The value hypothesis is a better-informed purchase decision and identification of avoidable friction. Do not translate satisfaction into guaranteed savings or improved evidence. Applicability is to departments able to observe actual use and protect evaluation time; a single historical survey cannot establish a current product's business case.","engineering":"Interpretation: Fit is a draft-only assistant around an existing records workflow. Prerequisites include reliable incident identifiers, permissioned recordings, meaningful timestamps and reviewer participation. Preserve the original narrative inputs and every accepted edit. Test omitted observations, conflicting chronology and incomplete audio against an officer-adjudicated reference. A proof of value should compare active handling effort and factual completeness with conventional reports while recording non-use. Hosting must follow local data-handling requirements; this survey does not validate cloud, on-premises or hybrid options. Keep automated agents from submitting reports, and include upload failures and interrupted reviews in the test rather than benchmarking text generation alone.","delivery":"Interpretation: A records lead should coordinate patrol representatives, trainers, legal reviewers and IT. Baseline conventional reporting, prepare a limited cohort and schedule feedback sessions tied to observed corrections. Dependencies include usable logs and protected staff time. Proposed acceptance: every pilot report has an accountable approver, all deliberately seeded material errors are caught in the test set, and total handling effort meets a locally agreed target without quality deterioration. Train supervisors to distinguish readability from evidentiary adequacy and offer a conventional reporting route. Risks include selective participation, self-estimation bias and extra supervisory work hidden outside the officer's measured task."},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-14T03:00:57Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-14T03:03:45Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Interpretation: Test training comprehension and correction effort across officer experience and language needs.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: Require local evidence of total workload before converting a trial into recurring licenses.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: Records supervisors should own acceptance and distinguish adoption support from efficacy evaluation.","updateExplanation":"New-to-archive historical source adds practitioner adoption evidence to the already archived objective timing study. No new trial or recent update claimed.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/k3lb349u/release/1","referenceExcerpt":"perception alone does not conclusively establish actual improvements","promptVersion":"sled-research-v3.2","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}