AI evaluation, governance & quality
Evaluate AI answer quality, permissions, costs and failure cases, and define practical ownership, review and change-control processes.
THE BUSINESS CONTEXT
A convincing demonstration does not show how an AI application behaves across the full range of business tasks. Teams need representative evidence, clear responsibilities and a way to assess changes before extending the tool’s use.
We help turn business expectations into evaluation cases and operating rules. The work can support a new pilot or assess an existing assistant, with a scope tied to the decisions the business is preparing to make.
YOUR FIRST ENGAGEMENT
Focused Pilot
Assess one assistant using representative business questions, permission tests and an operating-cost review.
Discuss This PilotAccess to the evaluated application, representative tasks, expected results and responsible reviewers.
Measures are agreed for your project. Results depend on the data, workflow and evaluation; they are not guaranteed improvements.
WHAT WE DO
Collect ordinary tasks, difficult examples and requests the tool should decline. Agree how correctness is judged and which errors matter most. Include a current-process baseline where possible. Keep the evaluation set separate from examples used to configure or tune the system.
Check factual grounding, source quality, permission separation and response to misleading instructions in retrieved content. Test unavailable tools, incomplete input and unauthorised actions. Automated scoring can assist, but representative human review remains essential for nuanced business outputs.
Define who approves source content, model changes and expanded tool access. Document retention settings, review queues, incident routes and user feedback. Maintain a practical record of intended use and known limitations. Compliance obligations are identified with the customer’s qualified advisers rather than presumed satisfied by a checklist.
Record quality, latency and cost per completed task over time. Compare provider or prompt changes against the same evaluation cases before release. Maintain rollback options and scheduled reviews. Governance should make the tool easier to operate and improve, with responsibilities the team can actually sustain.
A DEFINED ENGAGEMENT
Your proposal defines the exact scope, responsibilities, milestones, and exclusions. Depending on the engagement, the work can include:
WHERE IT FITS
Check an assistant before wider deployment.
Establish ownership and practical review rules.
Understand quality gaps and operating costs.
WHO THIS CAN HELP
Explore example workflows and the customer groups these services are designed to support.
A PRACTICAL FIRST STEP
Choose one useful task, agree how the result will be checked, and use the evidence to decide what should happen next.
QUESTIONS, ANSWERED
No. The work provides technical and operational evidence. Formal certification, legal opinions and sector-specific approvals require the relevant qualified providers.
Yes, subject to suitable access and an agreed assessment scope. Some tests may be limited by the available interfaces and records.
No. Evaluation reveals behaviour on the tested cases and helps improve controls. Monitoring, clear limits and human review are still needed in production.
CONNECTED CAPABILITIES
Turn interest in artificial intelligence into a practical business plan.
Explore This Specialty
Maintain AI knowledge, evaluate model changes, monitor usage costs and improve workflows through a clearly scoped ongoing support engagement..
Explore This Specialty
Assess and build private AI deployments with identity controls, approved hosting, model evaluation and a clear view of infrastructure and operating costs..
Explore This SpecialtyA CONVERSATION IS A GOOD PLACE TO START