AI evaluation & assurance

Know what changed before your AI goes live.

Test unsupported answers, prompt injection, data leakage and tool misuse before approving a release.

Talk to usExplore service
A release decision with evidenceExample workflow
Review areaEvidence to establish
GroundingClaims supported by permitted sources
Action safetyUnauthorised tool calls rejected
RegressionCandidate compared with the current release

An implementation example

A better demo is not a release criterion

Build a versioned evaluation set from real tasks, difficult cases and expected refusals. Compare changes to prompts, models and retrieval against the same evidence.

A release decision with evidence

An Australian business needs evidence that a proposed assistant improves a specific operational task.

A failure to account for

The evaluation set contains the same examples used to design the prompt.

Illustrative scenario, not a customer case study.

Prepare the conversation

What needs attention in your system?

Select the areas you want to discuss. Download the list to share with your team.

Build an evaluation set that includes ordinary requests, difficult cases and expected refusals.

Compare model, prompt and retrieval changes against the same versioned inputs and acceptance criteria.

Review traces, cost, latency and failure behaviour alongside answer quality before approving a release.

Exercise denied permissions, malformed inputs and interrupted actions as part of the evaluation.

Test hostile document instructions and requests that try to cross the application’s trust boundaries.

Retain model, prompt, source and configuration versions so an unexpected result can be investigated.

0 areas selected

AI, data & automation

Look beyond the average score.

Representative tasks

Build an evaluation set that includes ordinary requests, difficult cases and expected refusals.

Regression comparisons

Compare model, prompt and retrieval changes against the same versioned inputs and acceptance criteria.

Operational evidence

Review traces, cost, latency and failure behaviour alongside answer quality before approving a release.

Tool behaviour

Exercise denied permissions, malformed inputs and interrupted actions as part of the evaluation.

Adversarial inputs

Test hostile document instructions and requests that try to cross the application’s trust boundaries.

Release comparison

Retain model, prompt, source and configuration versions so an unexpected result can be investigated.

Release confidence comes from the difficult cases

The fragile approach

Judge a handful of good answers

Selected examples miss harmful regressions, missing citations and cost changes under realistic traffic.

The intended approach

Review an explicit release record

Keep task results, failures, latency and cost together. Record who accepted the remaining limitations and the rollback trigger.

Usually not. Separate task quality, access control, action safety, response time and cost. A critical permission failure must not disappear inside an average score.

Read the engineering behind it