I believe that you have misunderstood the concept of comparative advantage.
At first glance, we see that Jane is more efficient than Toby at completing both chores, so maybe Jane should do both chores to minimize the time spent on chores? Although this idea in principle may seem to work, Jane and Toby know that time is a scarce resource.
If the goal of both parties is to minimize the total time spent on chores, having Jane do all the chores is the ideal solution. Each person working to their comparative advantage only makes sense if the two parties are, in some sense, trading chores to maximize their own gain, but unwilling to make one-sided sacrifices for the other.
This is why the principle of comparative advantage is so prevalent in free-market economics, where all parties are assumed to be trading for mutual gain. But the concept doesn't really make sense as a global utility optimizer.
I believe that you have misunderstood the concept of comparative advantage.
If the goal of both parties is to minimize the total time spent on chores, having Jane do all the chores is the ideal solution. Each person working to their comparative advantage only makes sense if the two parties are, in some sense, trading chores to maximize their own gain, but unwilling to make one-sided sacrifices for the other.
This is why the principle of comparative advantage is so prevalent in free-market economics, where all parties are assumed to be trading for mutual gain. But the concept doesn't really make sense as a global utility optimizer.