{{ block title }}Experiment Complete — Results{{ endblock }} {{ block content }}

Thank You for Participating!

You have completed all 5 rounds of the supplier selection experiment.

Your condition: AI Transparency — {% if transparency == 'high' %} High (Glass Box) {% else %} Low (Black Box) {% endif %}
💰 Your Performance Bonus
Rounds with optimal choice
{{ optimal_rounds }} / 5
Bonus per optimal round
€ {{ bonus_per_round }}
Your performance bonus
€ {{ performance_bonus }}

Your total compensation = participation fee + performance bonus (€ {{ performance_bonus }}). Payment will be processed after the session closes.

Cumulative Performance Gap (Δw across 5 rounds)
Total Purchasing Gap (PA)
Σ Δw = {{ cumulative_dw_pa }}
Total CSR Gap (SA)
Σ Δw = {{ cumulative_dw_sa }}

Δw = 0 means the team's choice matched the optimal recommendation every round. Higher values indicate greater cumulative deviation.

Round-by-Round Summary
{% for r in round_summary %} {% endfor %}
Round PA Choice Team Decision Optimal? Δw (PA) Δw (SA) Congruence
{{ r.round }} {{ r.pa_choice }} {{ r.sa_choice }} {% if r.optimal %} {% else %} {% endif %} {{ r.dw_pa }} {{ r.dw_sa }} {{ r.congruence }}
Study Debrief

This study examined how AI transparency affects trust and decision-making in two-person procurement teams. Participants were randomly assigned to either a high-transparency (Glass Box) or low-transparency (Black Box) AI condition.

The AI recommendation system was a controlled simulation (Wizard of Oz design). In most sessions, the AI correctly identified the optimal supplier based on weighted scoring criteria. In some sessions, the AI's recommendation was intentionally imperfect to reflect the realistic limitations of AI systems.

Your data will be analysed in aggregate to understand how transparency shapes trust calibration and team decision alignment in human-AI collaboration.

You may now close this browser tab. Thank you for your contribution to this research.

{{ endblock }}