What UI Design Can Do For "Good" Oversight Work: A Three-Month Action Research Study

Abstract

With AI automating consequential tasks, human oversight is required for ethical, legal, and practical reasons. Yet these oversight tasks can be demanding and often make for poor work. Empirical evidence on overseers' lived work experiences remains underexplored, yet critical for designing ``good'' oversight. We provide longitudinal, in-the-wild insights through action research accompanying (N=8) tutors who oversaw an AI-supported learning assistant over three months. Our thematic analysis combines insights from twelve weekly meetings and two workshop iterations and was enriched by four repeated questionnaires. We identified stimulation, mastery, and relatedness as key challenges, stemming from the task's repetitiveness, unclear impact of interventions, and limited connections with students and peers. Informed by our initial findings, we deployed targeted UI modifications with mixed success. This paper documents the long-term evolution of the work characteristics of a real-world oversight task and discusses which oversight work characteristics can and cannot be supported by interface design.