Reverse Turing Tests for Human-Machine Task Suitability Assessments Should be Profile-Driven

As AI is integrated into the workplace, organisations increasingly face allocation decisions between human and machine workers. These decisions are increasingly made or assisted by algorithms, creating a Reverse Turing Test dynamic wherein the machine is now the judge. In addition, human and machine workers may ``compete'' for a given task, reproducing aspects of adversarial games. This raises new methodological questions about assessing task suitability between humans and machines. The criteria often used to assess people (e.g., education, experience, references) cannot feasibly scale to AI systems; conversely, AI evaluation methods (benchmarks, red teaming, leaderboards) cannot be easily applied to human workers or yield comparable metrics. In this position paper, we argue that suitability evaluations for task-assignment should be profile-driven -- that is, based on assessments that infer latent constructs such as capabilities and propensities from observed performance. This approach places humans and AI systems on shared scales, supporting comparisons that are predictive of novel-task performance, explanatory of why agents succeed or fail, and auditable. We outline the core features of this approach, discuss its practical implications, and compare it with alternative frameworks for human-machine workplace allocation.