Human-AI Interaction is commonly evaluated by what an artificial agent enables during use, yet interaction can also alter the human who acts next. We introduce Residual Human States, a trajectory-based framework for representing the potentially multidimensional human state carried forward after interaction with AI, relative to a relevant alternative trajectory. The framework distinguishes assisted output from human-state transition and derives four empirical propositions: multidimensionality, interaction-policy dependence, horizon dissociation, and temporal persistence. Its central claim is that assisted performance does not by itself determine the human state carried forward. We examine these propositions through four empirical cases with different inferential roles. Published medical-training evidence illustrates how one AI interaction history can be associated with both slightly higher observed accuracy on some later unaided cases and transmission of a systematic decision bias on others. A second diagnostic-learning study shows that later unaided behaviour differs across AI-support policies, while also revealing that aggregate accuracy cannot by itself distinguish improved discrimination from a shifted response criterion. In a classroom experiment, generative-AI tutoring substantially improved assisted practice performance without a corresponding detectable gain on a subsequent unaided exam. A longitudinal reanalysis of personalised AI dialogue further shows that residual contrasts can evolve across post-interaction horizons and that such change may arise from the comparison trajectory as well as from the focal intervention. Evaluating interactive AI systems therefore requires attention not only to contemporaneous performance, but also to which human states alternative interaction trajectories produce, relative to which counterfactuals, and how durably.
