EN ES
Contact

The Standard · In practice

What a decision you can trust looks like.

We took one real question, answered it from published evidence, and then held that answer to all seven questions of the Standard — nothing hidden. Here is the whole thing, in the open.

Worked example Built from real published research — every figure below is sourced and linked. It’s the shape of an answer you could act on, not personalised advice.

The question

A decision millions of workplaces are weighing.

A leadership team asks:

“Should we move our people to a four-day week — same pay, same output?”

The answer

For a knowledge-work team, likely yes — but prove it with a time-boxed trial, on one output metric you agree up front.

Confidence: moderate Reviewed & signed by a named person

That’s the recommendation. What makes it one you could act on is everything underneath it — so here is that answer put through the Standard, question by question.

  1. 01

    Why was this recommended?

    The reasoning is here to see — not just the conclusion.

    1. Across the largest real trials — 61 companies in the UK, and Iceland’s public sector — output broadly held while wellbeing, staff retention, and sick-day rates improved sharply.
    2. The gains that are best measured (people staying, fewer sick days) are large. The claim that is hardest to measure — raw productivity — is exactly where to stay cautious.
    3. So the low-risk move is a time-boxed trial in your own context, with a success metric agreed in advance: you capture the upside while testing the part the evidence is thinnest on.
  2. 02

    What evidence supports it?

    Every claim carries its source. Open it and check.

    In the UK’s 2022 pilot — 61 companies, ~2,900 staff — 56 kept the four-day week afterwards, and revenue stayed broadly flat (about +1.4% across the trial).
    Verified Autonomy Institute & 4 Day Week Global · UK pilot report, Feb 2023 · confidence 0.88
    Across that same pilot, staff turnover fell 57% and sick days fell 65%; 71% of employees reported less burnout.
    Verified Autonomy Institute & 4 Day Week Global · UK pilot report, Feb 2023 · confidence 0.85
    Iceland’s public-sector trials (2015–2019, ~2,500 workers on 35–36 hour weeks) found productivity held or rose; ~86% of the workforce has since won shorter hours.
    Verified Autonomy / Alda · reported by the World Economic Forum, 2022 · confidence 0.82
  3. 03

    What did it assume?

    Assumptions are stated, not buried. Each one is a place the answer could break.

    • Your work is mostly knowledge or office work — where the trials ran — not shift-based care, manufacturing, or retail.
    • You actually redesign the work — cutting low-value meetings and busywork — rather than cramming five days into four.
    • You can define and measure “output” for your team. If you can’t, you won’t be able to tell whether it held.
  4. 04

    What is still uncertain?

    The unknowns are named, with how much they matter — a hidden doubt is the dangerous kind.

    Whether output truly held, or just felt like it. Most trials tracked revenue and self-reported productivity — not rigorous output. That is economists’ central critique.
    Uncertain EU Joint Research Centre · “Assessing the Validity of Four-day Week Pilots” · confidence 0.40
    How well it transfers to your workplace. The firms that volunteered were mostly smaller, white-collar, and already open to the idea.
    Uncertain EU Joint Research Centre · selection-bias analysis · confidence 0.38
    Whether the gains last for years. The headline trials ran about six months; a one-year follow-up is encouraging but still thin.
    Uncertain Autonomy Institute · “Making it stick,” 2024 · confidence 0.50
  5. 05

    Who is accountable?

    A specific person, named before the fact — never “the AI decided.”

    The system gathered the evidence, weighed it, and laid out the risks. A person checked the sources, made the call, and put their name to it — before this went out, not after.
    Juan Ávila Founding director · Reviewed before release
  6. 06

    How can it be challenged?

    There is a real way to question or correct it.

    • If your trial’s agreed output metric falls below the line you set in advance, the four-day week is off — however much people like it.
    • If the only gains are in wellbeing, not output, that’s a real and honest reason to do it — but it’s a different decision from a productivity claim, and we’d call it that.
    • Open the evidence on any claim above, check the source yourself, and file a challenge that a named person has to answer.
  7. 07

    How can it get better?

    What would change the answer — and how it improves over time.

    A time-boxed trial with a metric agreed up front produces the one thing the public evidence still lacks: rigorous output data from your own context. That result either confirms the move or ends it — and adds a real data point to a young, still-thin evidence base. The answer is built to change the moment better evidence arrives.

Sources

Check our work.

  1. Autonomy Institute & 4 Day Week Global — “The results are in: the UK’s four-day week pilot” (Feb 2023)
  2. Autonomy Institute — “Making it stick: the UK four-day week pilot, one year on” (Feb 2024)
  3. World Economic Forum — “New study shows 4-day week to be a success” (Iceland trials, 2022)
  4. European Commission, Joint Research Centre — “Assessing the Validity of Four-day Week Pilots”

The bar

A trustworthy answer isn’t the one that sounds most certain. It’s the one that shows its work — and survives all seven questions.

Every Enpath answer, or it isn’t one.

This is the standard we hold our own work to.

The tools that produce answers like this — end to end, with the evidence attached — are what we’re building.

Read the Standard See what we’re building