Venue: ICLR 2023 TinyPapers

Reviews:

final_score: rating: High Potential (HP): a submission which meets the reviewing criteria and has potential to make an impact on the field
review_content: summary_of_contributions: This paper analyzes popular behavioral attributes found in team roles in a human-AI teaming scenario. Here, they describe the potential role of AI systems in these teams as they would fit into each role, and discuss the current potential for AI systems to be augmented into each role.
strengths_and_weaknesses: I really enjoyed reading this paper! As human-AI teams become more prevalent, I think it is important to use and adapt frameworks to help us describe where AI fits into these teams and the bounds of the role it will play. I especially enjoyed the addition of the current augmentation potential for each role.

Strengths:
- Clarity: Ideas and conclusions are presented and communicated clearly, relevant related work is well discussed. 

- Correctness: The methodology, reasoning, and related work well supports the claims in the paper.

- Reproducibility: Ideas are well supported and communicated, conclusions could be reproduced. 

Weaknesses:
- Follows basic requirements: The paper is over the 2 page maximum limit
suggested_changes: The paper is unfortunately over the maximum 2 page limit (the conclusion lands on the 3rd page). However I believe that the page requirement could be met without sacrificing any of the paper content. I would suggest the following: since the footnotes are just referencing websites, change them to citations. After that, if space is still needed then the subsection headers in the introduction could be removed or changed to short section headers (as in Section 2.1-2.3).
review_title: null

Meta-review: metareview: 1. Clarity: Though the communication is clear, relevant literature links are provided, relevant proofs are missing
2. Correctness: Author needs to improve conclusion and provide proper justification
3. Reproducibility: Considering this paper is on theoretical findings, relevant proofs missing for the assumptions of 6 out of 9 Belbin Team Roles.
4. The 3 Proof majorly provided are of applications and discussions made in websites, it would be beneficial to provide some research paper proofs as well. 


Pros: \
A good start to analyse managerial book, [Team roles at work](https://books.google.com/books/about/Team_Roles_at_Work.html?id=hF2yJzYfUBAC) and link to AI for each role. 

Cons: \
Misleading link proofs for 6 out of 9 Belbin Team Roles
confidence: 4: The area chair is confident but not absolutely certain
Decision: Invite to revise