## 4 Discussion
### Task Complexity in Emergency vs. Routine Monitoring Situations: A Comparative Discussion  
A non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA (Friedman test) was conducted on task complexity data across conditions in Part 2 of the study. The results revealed that all dimensions of contingency tasks were significantly more challenging than those in routine conditions, except for the third dimension, ambiguity, as shown in Table 8. This suggests that while most aspects of emergency response tasks are inherently more complex, the level of ambiguity remains consistent across both routine and emergency scenarios. This finding aligns with the nature of subway dispatching, where ambiguity in information interpretation is a constant challenge, regardless of the operational context.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Descriptive Statistics**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Significance Statistics**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Emergency Condition**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Normal Condition**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Repeated Measures ANOVA**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standard**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Friedman \(\chi^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} \\
**Task Complexity Factors** & **N** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Deviation** & & **Mean** & **Deviation** & & **Friedman \(\chi^{2}\)** & \(p\)** & **Difference** (**d-j**)** \\ \hline
1—Size & 160 & 5.319 & 0.112 & 1.416 & 4.856 & 0.127 & 1.609 & 11.636 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.463 \\
2—Variety & 160 & 5.650 & 0.099 & 1.255 & 5.069 & 0.114 & 1.446 & 26.042 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.581 \\
3—Ambiguity & 160 & 2.594 & 0.118 & 1.493 & 2.650 & 0.118 & 1.489 & 0.821 & 0.365 & \textless{}0.056 \\
4—Relationship & 160 & 5.369 & 0.104 & 1.316 & 4.669 & 0.131 & 1.651 & 15.042 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.700 \\
5—Variability & 160 & 5.963 & 0.076 & 0.964 & 4.200 & 0.148 & 1.866 & 70.738 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.763 \\
6—Unreliability & 160 & 3.931 & 0.138 & 1.742 & 3.288 & 0.137 & 1.732 & 15.696 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.644 \\
7—Novelty & 160 & 3.856 & 0.131 & 1.663 & 3.331 & 0.134 & 1.692 & 19.463 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.525 \\
8—Incongruity & 160 & 4.819 & 0.119 & 1.500 & 4.231 & 0.139 & 1.753 & 7.353 & 0.007 & 0.588 \\
9—Action Complexity & 160 & 4.894 & 0.111 & 1.399 & 3.881 & 0.139 & 1.757 & 37.586 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.013 \\
10—Temporal Demand & 160 & 5.756 & 0.098 & 1.238 & 4.094 & 0.145 & 1.832 & 67.930 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.663 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Variability in task complexity under different operating conditions.  
The interviews further highlighted that emergency response tasks require greater flexibility and adaptability from dispatchers. The significant differences in task complexity between routine monitoring and emergency response conditions lead to substantial changes in task content and workflow [48]. In emergency situations, dispatchers tend to rely on multiple channels for the repeated confirmation of the same information, as depending solely on the ATS system is often impractical [70]. This multi-channel approach reflects the heightened need for accuracy and reliability during high-stake scenarios. Conversely, in routine monitoring environments, the security and completeness of the operation system are relatively robust, allowing dispatchers to place stronger reliance on the ATS system based on their established trust in its performance. However, the trust developed under routine conditions may not seamlessly translate to emergency response situations, where operational demands and task dynamics undergo drastic changes. This discrepancy underscores the importance of designing automation systems that can adapt to varying levels of task complexity and operational contexts.