Methodology & Ontology
The underlying computational models, in-house metrics, and canonical glossary that drive the Cognitive Systems Lab estimation tools.
1. Our Approach
We treat mental workload, attention, and process complexity as features that can be roughly modelled with a few measurable inputs. This page documents the heuristic metrics we use and the shared vocabulary that unifies our tools and articles. These are our own simplifications, built on established research — not validated clinical scales, and we label them as such throughout.
2. The Metrics We Use
Our tools output three metrics designed to turn a few hard-to-see factors into something you can compare and discuss. Each formula is shown in full. These are deterministic heuristic models — our own design choices — not clinical diagnostic scales.
3. Canonical Ontology (Glossary)
The following terms form the standardized vocabulary used across all our internal models, diagnostic articles, and calculators.
| Entity | Definition |
|---|---|
| Intrinsic Complexity | The immovable, structural procedural weight of a task based solely on its internal steps and required operational knowledge. |
| Extraneous Load | The avoidable cognitive tax imposed by the environment, poor UI/UX, disorganized data, or broken toolchains. |
| Attentional Residue | The cognitive lag and performance drop that persists after an interruption or rapid context switch. |
| Dynamic Complexity | Workflow variance introduced by changing external conditions, making SOPs difficult to execute mechanically. |
| Procedural Entropy | The degree of unpredictable branching and chaos within a system's workflow logic. |
4. How we separate research from opinion
To avoid pseudo-scientific certainty, we keep two kinds of statements clearly apart across the whole site:
- Established research. Claims that come from peer-reviewed work in cognitive psychology or human factors. These are stated as such and linked to a primary source (see the references below and on each article).
- Our own heuristics. The specific formulas, weights, and the names CFI / TES / FRW are our simplifications. They are informed by the research but not measured by it, and we say so plainly wherever they appear.
If you ever find those two blurred together on this site, that is a bug — please tell us and we'll correct it.
5. Primary Sources
The vocabulary and weighting directions on this page draw on established research. The formulas themselves are our own heuristics (see the previous section), but the concepts they operationalise come from these primary sources:
- Working memory limits: Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158
- Working-memory model: Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
- Cognitive Load Theory: Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
- Attentional residue: Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002
- Workload measurement (established alternative): Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9