## 3 Results
### Time-Dependent Performance Analysis
#### 3.3.1 Temporal Patterns in Productivity  
Figure 8 illustrates the time-based productivity trends for each task type and intensity level, comparing exoskeleton and non-exoskeleton conditions over the 2 h work period. The graphs clearly show that productivity declined over time in all conditions, but the rate of decline was consistently lower when using the exoskeleton. Open circles (\(\Circle\)) represent data points classified as statistical outliers in the box plots. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Task** & **Without Exoskeleton** & **With Exoskeleton** & **Improvements (\%)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Cycle Duration CV (\%)} & CT-Low & 12.8 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 8.5 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 33.6 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & CT-High & 15.3 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 9.2 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 39.9 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & MT-Low & 10.5 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 7.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 27.6 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & MT-High & 14.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 9.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 34.5 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & ST-Low & 11.3 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 8.1 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 28.3 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & ST-High & 13.9 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 8.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 36.0 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Movement Smoothness Index} & CT-Low & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 30.8 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & CT-High & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 41.9 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MT-Low & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 26.3 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MT-High & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 35.4 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & ST-Low & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 27.8 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & ST-High & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 39.1 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Movement pattern consistency metrics. Table 5 quantifies the productivity decline rates for each task and intensity level during the 2 h work period (from 0-30 min to 90-120 min). For the sack carrying task (CT) under low-intensity conditions, productivity decreased by 18.6% without the exoskeleton while, with the exoskeleton, it decreased by only 12.7%. This means that using the exoskeleton results in a 5.9% less productivity decline. In high-intensity conditions (inclined surface), the difference was even greater, with productivity  
Figure 8: Productivity rates decline over time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Task Type** & **Intensity** & **Without Exoskeleton (\%)** & **With Exoskeleton (\%)** & **Difference (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sack Carrying (CT)} & Low & 18.6 & 12.7 & 5.9 \\  & High & 21.5 & 14.6 & 6.9 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Masonry Bricklaying (MT)} & Low & 21.5 & 11.5 & 10.0 \\  & High & 28.8 & 14.5 & 14.3 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Scaffolding Installation (ST)} & Low & 20.0 & 10.2 & 9.8 \\  & High & 26.2 & 14.0 & 12.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Productivity rates decline over the 2 h work period. decreasing by 21.5% without the exoskeleton but only 14.6% with the exoskeleton, showing a 6.9% difference. The effects of the exoskeleton were most pronounced in the masonry bricklaying task (MT). Under low-intensity conditions (waist-level work), productivity decreased by 21.5% without the exoskeleton, but only by 11.5% with the exoskeleton, resulting in a 10.0% difference. In high-intensity conditions (ground-level work), this difference expanded further, with productivity declining by 28.8% without the exoskeleton compared to just 15.5% with the exoskeleton, representing a substantial 14.3% difference. Similar patterns were observed in the scaffolding installation task (ST). In low-intensity conditions (clamp installation), productivity decreased by 20.0% without the exoskeleton but only by 10.2% with the exoskeleton, showing a 9.8% difference. In high-intensity conditions (frame installation), productivity decreased by 26.2% without the exoskeleton but only by 14.0% with the exoskeleton, demonstrating a 12.1% difference.