In ethics-sensitive product development, Generative AI can improve the efficiency of concept generation, but it also raises challenges related to accountability, value alignment, and decision transparency. To address limitations in current human-AI co-design processes, including unclear allocation of decision-making authority, insufficiently structured translation from design requirements to design constraints, and limited explainability in scheme evaluation, this study proposes an explainable Human–Computer Interaction (HCI)-based decision support framework for human-AI co-design, termed GAGT. The framework integrates Generative AI with multi-criteria decision-making methods. Specifically, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to structure design requirements and determine their priorities, Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) is used to compare candidate schemes, and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to support transparent final ranking. Within the framework, human designers are mainly responsible for requirement confirmation, priority judgment, review at key checkpoints, and final scheme selection, while AI mainly supports information organization, candidate scheme generation, and quantitative comparison. The framework was applied to the design of a community medical vehicle through a small-sample, case-based, quasi-experimental study. Compared with the human-only condition, the GAGT-supported condition reduced design time by 56.1%. Compared with the AI-autonomous condition, it showed no observed HIPAA violations and a Value Drift Index of 16.1%, indicating better consistency with human-defined priorities. The results suggest that the proposed framework may improve design efficiency while supporting clearer human oversight and decision explainability in Generative AI-assisted design, and may provide a structured approach to organizing human and AI roles in ethics-sensitive design tasks.
Zhu et al. (Mon,) studied this question.