Most organizations investing in AI right now are trapped in the same cycle. They've deployed sophisticated models, built impressive demos, and assembled talented teams — yet they have no objective way to measure whether their AI application actually works for their users.
Register for an upcoming AI Ops Lab. Learn More
We call this the AI Evaluation Paradox. Teams pour months into automated testing infrastructure, only to discover their "quality scores" are completely disconnected from the real user experience. In the rush to build evaluations, they forget that evaluation isn't a suite of unit tests. It's a rigorous process of human-driven sensemaking.
If you want to build AI that delivers measurable business outcomes, you need to stop treating evaluation as a background engineering task and start treating it as the core of your development workflow.
Here are six lessons we've learned working with operations teams on AI implementation — and what to do instead.
1. Your Most Important Work Is Manual Error Analysis
Here's the uncomfortable truth about building production AI: 60–80% of your development time should be spent on manual error analysis. If your team is spending most of its time tweaking prompt templates or swapping model versions without actually looking at raw outputs, they're flying blind.
Error analysis isn't just "looking at logs." It's a structured methodology with two phases.
Open Coding is the discovery phase. A domain expert reviews traces — the full input-to-output journey of each interaction — and writes open-ended notes about what went wrong. The goal is to identify the first failure point in each trace, because upstream errors inevitably cascade downstream.
Axial Coding is where you build your data-driven roadmap. You take those open-ended notes and categorize them into a failure taxonomy. By grouping similar failures, you can count them and prioritize fixes based on actual impact. If you find 40 instances of "Tone Mismatch" and only 2 of "Hallucination," you know exactly where to invest for the highest ROI.
To reach the point where new traces stop revealing new failure modes, you should review at least 100 traces per iteration. Skipping this work leads to generic metrics that provide a false sense of security while your product fails in ways nobody bothered to observe.
2. Appoint a Single Domain Expert as Your Quality Standard
When it comes to evaluating AI quality, the common instinct is to seek consensus through large groups or third-party labeling services. In practice, this is a recipe for paralysis. Subjective disagreements and too many stakeholders lead to diluted quality standards that don't reflect what your users actually need.
Instead, appoint a single principal domain expert — someone who deeply understands your users — as the definitive standard for quality.
Building a legal AI tool? That person is a senior lawyer. A healthcare assistant? A qualified clinician. A customer support tool? Your customer service director.
A single expert eliminates the friction of annotation conflicts. They can incorporate feedback from the broader team, but they alone drive the quality standard. This is also why outsourcing evaluation to third-party services is risky. Outsourcing breaks the feedback loop and loses the institutional knowledge and product intuition that only your internal experts possess.
3. Use Binary Evaluations — Ditch the 1-5 Scales
Engineering teams love Likert scales (1-5 ratings), assuming they provide granular, useful data. In reality, they're a graveyard for objectivity.
The core problem is criteria drift. Human expectations change as they observe LLM behavior over time. A "3" today becomes a "2" tomorrow as the evaluator's standards evolve. This makes trend analysis unreliable and strategic decisions based on that data questionable.
Binary Pass/Fail evaluations are superior because they anchor your quality bar and force clearer thinking.
They eliminate hiding places — a binary choice forces a hard decision rather than letting uncertainty hide in a middle value. They're faster, because nobody wastes time debating whether something is a 3 or a 4. And they're more consistent, because it's far easier to align a team on a binary standard than a sliding scale.
To track nuance without scales, measure specific sub-components with separate binary checks. Rather than a "4/5" for accuracy, track "4 out of 5 expected facts included" as individual pass/fail data points. You get the granularity without the drift.
4. Stop Trusting "Ready-to-Use" Metrics
Generic metrics like ROUGE, BERTScore, or off-the-shelf "Helpfulness" ratings create an illusion of confidence. They measure abstract qualities that rarely correlate with whether your AI is actually solving the business problem it was designed for.
Many evaluation vendors promote these metrics as shortcuts. They're not. They're liabilities.
The right approach is to treat generic metrics only as exploration signals. They're useful for sorting through thousands of traces to find outliers — finding a needle in a haystack. But they are never the ground truth. Using ROUGE to sign off on a production release is negligence. Using it to surface interesting traces for a human expert to review is strategy.
Build your evaluation criteria around the specific outcomes your users care about. What does "good" look like for your particular use case? That's the question generic metrics will never answer for you.
5. Build a Custom Evaluation Interface
Teams with purpose-built annotation tools iterate dramatically faster than those using generic, off-the-shelf software. And thanks to modern AI-assisted development tools, building a tailored interface is now a matter of hours, not weeks.
A high-impact evaluation interface focuses on keeping your domain expert in a state of flow.
Intelligent Trace Rendering means showing outputs the way users actually see them. If you're evaluating emails, render them as emails. If you're evaluating a SQL generator, show the query results in a table. Don't make your experts decode raw JSON.
Keyboard Navigation with hotkeys keeps reviewers moving efficiently through traces without constant context-switching.
Progress Indicators — even something as simple as "Trace 45 of 100" — keep sessions bounded and motivating.
By showing all relevant context on one screen — user input, tool calls, intermediate steps, and final output — you empower domain experts to evaluate outcomes without needing to understand the underlying technical implementation. This is how you bridge the gap between technical teams and business stakeholders in your evaluation process.
6. Validate Your AI Judges Before You Trust Them
Using an LLM to evaluate another LLM's output — "LLM-as-a-Judge" — is a powerful approach, but it's not a set-it-and-forget-it solution.
Start with the most capable models available to establish strong alignment with human judgment. You can optimize for cost and use smaller models later, once you've validated the approach.
To trust an automated judge, you need to measure two things. The True Positive Rate tells you how often it correctly identifies a "pass." The True Negative Rate tells you how often it correctly identifies a "fail." These metrics let you mathematically correct the judge's estimates and determine the actual failure rate of your system with confidence.
One critical mistake to avoid: don't write evaluations before you've seen the failures. LLMs have effectively infinite failure surfaces that you can't anticipate in advance. You have to observe the failures through manual error analysis first, and then build evaluators for the patterns you actually find. Working in the opposite direction — what some teams call "eval-driven development" — leads to evaluations that test for problems that don't exist while missing the ones that do.
The Model Is Not the Product
Excellence in AI doesn't come from a secret prompt or the latest model release. It comes from the rigorous, manual observation of how your system fails in real-world conditions.
Today's prompt engineering techniques will be obsolete within a couple of years. The need for systematic error analysis and domain-specific evaluation is permanent.
The organizations that will win with AI are the ones willing to do the unglamorous work of looking at their data. If your team isn't spending the majority of its time reviewing raw traces and building evaluation processes around what they find, you're not building a product — you're just experimenting with a model.
That's the difference between an AI demo and an AI solution that delivers measurable business outcomes.