When AI-generated content in small-group workplace problem-solving must be re-derived by a non-driver member, is it more effective for long-term retention and equitable participation to (a) randomly assign the re-deriver each time, (b) rotate the role systematically across members, or (c) let the group choose the re-deriver—especially in groups with an existing dominant-solver pattern?

Answer

Systematic rotation of the re-deriver role (option b) is likely the most effective default for both long-term retention and equitable participation, especially in groups with an existing dominant-solver pattern. Random assignment (a) is a reasonable fallback when rotation is impractical but will often, by chance, reinforce existing inequalities. Letting the group choose the re-deriver (c) is usually least effective for equity in dominant-solver groups, unless strong facilitation and norms explicitly counter status dynamics.

Practical policy:

• In groups with known or likely dominant-solver patterns, use systematic rotation of re-derivers, with the facilitator enforcing that everyone takes turns explaining AI-derived content over time.
• Use random assignment only as a secondary tool (e.g., within or on top of a rotation schedule) when fine-grained tracking is hard.
• Avoid relying on group choice alone in low–psychological-safety or status-heavy settings; if used at all, pair it with constraints (e.g., “someone who has not re-derived yet today”).