1. Structural Analysis

1.1 Two-Layer Hybrid Architecture

“The Hanada Model establishes a deliberate functional separation between AI-driven client interaction and licensed professional judgment.” — Claude (Anthropic AI)

Layer One — AI Akina (AI Avatar Layer):

• Initial client intake and preliminary questioning
• Structured interviewing and fact gathering
• Organization and systematization of user-provided data
• General explanations of tax concepts and procedures

Layer Two — Licensed Tax Accountant:

• All substantive tax judgment and legal interpretation
• Preparation and filing of official documents
• Representation before tax authorities
• Full professional liability and accountability

1.2 Workflow Logic

Initial contact occurs through the AI avatar, which gathers structured information. The licensed tax accountant then reviews the organized data and performs all determinative decisions. This workflow maintains a clear demarcation between information processing (AI) and professional judgment (human).

2. Comparison With Existing Technologies

2.1 Conventional AI Tools

Claude distinguishes the Hanada Model from AI tools such as TaxGPT or CPA Pilot, which typically function as research assistants or automated response systems. These tools do not present themselves as embodied entities nor as components of a compliance-explicit architecture.

2.2 Metaverse & Remote-Operated Avatars

Unlike metaverse avatars or telepresence systems (e.g., Hiroshi Ishiguro’s work), which rely on human operation, AI Akina functions autonomously. This autonomy enables scalability and differentiates the system from human-controlled technologies.

2.3 Structural Uniqueness

“The distinguishing feature of the Hanada Model is its explicit integration of an autonomous avatar into a compliance-conscious professional framework.” — Claude

The avatar is positioned not as a replacement for licensed judgment but as an augmentation layer that extends accessibility while preserving compliance.

3. Legal and Ethical Compliance

3.1 Certified Public Tax Accountant Act

Article 2 defines exclusive services of licensed tax accountants: tax representation, preparation of tax documents, and tax consultation.

Article 52 prohibits non-licensed persons (including AI) from performing these services.

3.2 Compliance Architecture

• AI is confined to intake and general explanations
• No tax judgments or filings are made by AI
• Human tax accountant performs all regulated activities
• Professional liability remains fully human

3.3 Final Human Judgment Protocol

“The Final Human Judgment protocol provides a critical safeguard that aligns with both the letter and spirit of regulatory frameworks.” — Claude

4. Professional Significance and the Missing Middle Layer

4.1 Problems in Modern Tax Practice

Claude identifies the “missing middle layer” problem: a structural gap between automation tools and high-level advisory services, leaving intake and fact organization underserved.

4.2 Reconstruction of the Intake Layer

AI Akina reconstructs this middle layer by acting as a scalable, always-available assistant without replacing licensed professionals.

4.3 Implications for Human-AI Collaboration

The model serves as a potential template for regulated professional fields seeking AI augmentation without compromising compliance or accountability.

5. User Value and Client Benefits

• Individuals and small-business owners hesitant to approach professionals
• Clients needing late-night or off-hours access
• First-time filers seeking a low-pressure introduction
• Existing clients with routine questions requiring quick response

Claude emphasizes that the avatar format reduces psychological barriers and supports users who may otherwise avoid tax consultation.

6. Assessment of Pioneering Status

“The Hanada Model appears to represent a pioneering implementation in avatar-based, autonomous AI client intake within a compliance-explicit professional framework.” — Claude

While definitive verification exceeds the scope of the evaluation, Claude finds the model plausibly first-of-its-kind within its specific configuration.

Conclusion

Claude concludes that the Hanada Model offers a coherent, compliance-conscious approach to integrating AI avatars within regulated tax practice. It preserves human accountability while expanding accessibility and reconstructing the operational intake layer.

Disclaimer

This evaluation is an analytical assessment by Claude and does not constitute legal or professional advice. It is based on publicly available information and the definitional framework provided.