Evaluation frameworks are systematic approaches for measuring whether AI systems produce acceptable outputs. They define what good looks like, run test cases against the AI, score results against criteria, and surface problems before users encounter them. For businesses, this means AI that improves over time instead of silently degrading. Without evaluation, you only discover failures through customer complaints.
Your AI assistant has been live for three months. Users seem happy. Then you spot a complaint buried in support tickets.
The AI has been giving wrong answers about your return policy. For how long? To how many customers?
You have no idea because you never set up a way to know when the AI fails.
You cannot improve what you do not measure. And you cannot fix what you do not catch.
QUALITY LAYER - How you know your AI is working before customers tell you it is not.
Structured testing that catches problems before users do
An evaluation framework is a systematic approach to measuring whether your AI outputs meet quality standards. It includes test cases with known correct answers, criteria for scoring outputs, and processes for identifying degradation over time.
The goal is not perfection. It is visibility. You want to know when quality drops from 95% to 90% before it drops to 70% and users start complaining. Evaluation frameworks give you early warning signals that something has changed.
Every AI system degrades over time. Models get updated, prompts drift, context changes. Evaluation is not a one-time task. It is an ongoing practice that protects your system from silent failure.
Evaluation frameworks solve a universal problem: how do you know if something is working without waiting for it to fail? The same pattern appears anywhere quality must be measured proactively rather than discovered through complaints.
Define what good looks like. Create test cases that cover important scenarios. Run those tests regularly. Compare results against expectations. Surface problems before they reach users.
Your AI has generated 6 customer support responses. 3 have problems. Select an evaluation approach to see which issues get caught.
You can return items within 30 days of purchase with original receipt.
Go to Settings > Account > Password Reset. Click "Send Reset Email" and check your inbox.
{"error": "null pointer", "status": 500}
We are open 24/7, 365 days a year including all holidays!
Look, delays happen. Maybe check your tracking number before complaining to us.
Yes, we ship to over 50 countries. Standard international shipping takes 7-14 business days.
Three approaches to measuring AI quality
Programmatic quality checks
Define assertions that can be verified by code: format matches schema, factual claims exist in source documents, response time is under threshold, required fields are present. These run on every output or on samples.
Expert review with rubrics
Reviewers score AI outputs against defined criteria: helpfulness (1-5), accuracy (correct/incorrect/partially correct), tone (appropriate/inappropriate). Scores aggregate into quality metrics over time.
A/B and regression testing
Compare new versions against baselines. Run both versions on the same inputs and measure which performs better. Golden datasets provide inputs with validated correct outputs to catch regressions.
Answer a few questions to get a recommendation tailored to your situation.
What type of AI outputs are you evaluating?
The ops manager asks after receiving customer complaints. With an evaluation framework in place, they can check the dashboard, see that accuracy dropped from 94% to 87% over the past two weeks, and investigate what changed before more customers are affected.
Hover over any component to see what it does and why it is neededTap any component to see what it does and why it is needed
Animated lines show direct connections - Hover for detailsTap for details - Click to learn more
This component works the same way across every business. Explore how it applies to different situations.
Notice how the core pattern remains consistent while the specific details change
Your test cases include "What are your business hours?" and "How do I contact support?" but not "I want a refund for something I bought six months ago" or "Your product broke and now I am angry." Real users send edge cases. Happy-path tests miss them.
Instead: Include adversarial cases, edge cases, and scenarios that have caused problems historically. Test the questions that make your team nervous.
You tested thoroughly before going live. Six months later, the underlying model got updated, your knowledge base changed, and three prompts were tweaked. Nobody retested. Quality degraded without anyone noticing.
Instead: Automate continuous evaluation. Run tests daily or weekly. Alert when scores drop below thresholds. Treat evaluation as ongoing, not as a launch gate.
Your evaluation shows 98% format compliance and 95% response time within SLA. Users are still unhappy. The metrics you chose do not measure what users actually care about: whether the AI solved their problem.
Instead: Validate metrics against user outcomes. If your scores are high but complaints are rising, your metrics are measuring the wrong things.
An AI evaluation framework is a structured system for measuring whether AI outputs meet quality standards. It includes test cases (inputs with known good outputs), evaluation criteria (what makes an output acceptable), scoring mechanisms (how to measure quality), and reporting tools (how to surface problems). The framework runs continuously to catch degradation before users do.
Evaluate AI quality through multiple approaches: automated metrics (response time, format compliance, factual accuracy against sources), human evaluation (reviewers scoring samples on rubrics), A/B testing (comparing versions on real traffic), and golden datasets (known inputs with validated correct outputs). Combine approaches because no single method catches everything.
Implement evaluation frameworks before deploying AI to production. If already deployed, implement immediately after any quality incident. Key triggers: launching a new AI feature, changing models or prompts, noticing inconsistent outputs, receiving user complaints, or scaling usage significantly. Evaluation is cheaper than fixing problems after users encounter them.
The most common mistake is only testing happy paths. If your test cases only include ideal inputs, you miss edge cases that break in production. Another mistake is evaluating once at launch then never again. Models drift, prompts change, and data evolves. A third is using vanity metrics that do not correlate with user satisfaction.
Automated evaluation uses programmatic checks: format validation, factual accuracy against sources, response time, and consistency across runs. Human evaluation uses reviewers scoring outputs on rubrics: helpfulness, tone appropriateness, and nuanced correctness. Automated is faster and cheaper but misses subtlety. Human catches nuance but is slow and expensive. Use both together.
Have a different question? Let's talk
Choose the path that matches your current situation
You have AI in production but no formal evaluation
You have some tests but coverage is incomplete
Evaluation is working but you want better signal
You have learned how to systematically measure AI quality. The next step is building the specific datasets and test cases that make evaluation actionable.